Pilate

[QUOTE=spin]Cut down on the "fancy footwork" and the indeterminable language: "... the qof and the lamed have been exchanged." Talk down to our level. We are common people here.
Since you mentioned the "old but classical scholarly" BDB, I will refer you to it.
Strong's says that Akeldama (a compound word) corresponds to words #2506 and #1818 in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Dictionary.
Go to page 196 of BDB and read: word # 1818 says" "blood (NH id., Ar." Which means: New Hebrew idiomatic expression, Aramaic.
I want to thank you spin! Your contrariety forced me to further examine this word in the New B-D-B, and I learned something (word # 1818) I did not know before.
This was the positive part of this exchange.

Chris Weimer

The "consensus" of what scholars? Oh wait a minute, I guess whatever they say is absolute divine mandate, is it not? No, your scholarship is outdated. Research a little.

Your "explanation" was circular reasoning.

I'd really like to see you make a case that all the extra-Biblical Hebrew scrolls antedate the Hellenistic period.

Bad move. Never depend on the judgements of experts, but their methodology and logic concerning evidence. I'm no expert either, but I can clearly see the evidence of which the experts work on to know whether their judgements are sound.

This forum isn't a place to use outdated or tenuous arguments as solid proof either.

This is all pretty irrelevant.

But there are no extraordinary claims being made! Not only that, I think you ought to apply this to yourself - unless you are an expert, you can't ignore evidence which contradicts previous scholarship.

Many here, including those not participating in this, will acknowledge that you can never trust the consensus, especially regarding antiquity. Hypotheses come and go, but only the evidence will remain clearly visible.

Notsri

Just to clarify, the Book of Acts' hakeldama correctly transliterates the underlying Semitism, be it Aramaic or Hebrew.

xql, chakel=field; xlq, chalak=portion

Cf. e.g. the Targum Onkelos (a mix of Eastern and Western Aramaic) to Genesis 2:5: "Now, all the trees of the field [xql)]were not yet on the earth, nor had any plant of the field [xql)], etc."

Ibid. to Genesis 43:34: "And he set portions [xlqn] that were before him towards them, and Benjamin's portion [xlq)] was five times more than those of anybody else."

Regards,
Notsri

spin

Hilarious. :rolling:

It might be worthwhile taking a little time to understand the work you are using before you make such appalling blunders.

"Ar." in the part you re misunderstanding indicates "Arabic" and it is followed by the Arabic word in the Arabic script.

However, you simply misunderstand the apparatus of BDB. In the same section, giving how the word appears in other languages, you'll find Ethiopian, Assyrian and Aramaic. This is so you can compare the forms. It does not suggest etymology.

Oh my, Andy. Why are you sucking up to christian dogma in such an obeisant manner?


spin

spin

The notion of "portion" is extended to land, as in the feminine in Amos 4:7. You start with the notion of "portion of land" xqlt $dh Gen 33:19. The notion that the portion can be land is the common understanding of its use in Jos 19. The use of xql for land doesn't change its original significance of "portion".

Late references such as

don't necessarily impact on the claim that I made.

There is a relation between xlq and "parcel of land/field" which is prior to your or Jastrow's examples of xql, so I'd say that there was at least a prima facie case of metathesis uniting the terms.


spin

Pilate

Thank you for pointing out my error! I give you credit.
Scrap that point about Halkedama. The words that the Jews used during the time of Jesus came from various sources, including Arabic.
I know, some of you don't consider Kosher quoting the Britannica Encyclopedia, but this posting contains some rough historical background that will help others to understand how the Aramean became the main language in Palestine.
Britannica Encyclopaedia:
"By the 9th century the whole area from Babylon to the Mediterranean coast {this includes Israel} was in the hands of the Aramaean tribes known collectively as Kaldu (or Kashdu)--the biblical Chaldeans._
Aramaeans along the lower Tigris River maintained their independence longer. In 626 a Chaldean general, Nabopolassar, proclaimed himself king of Babylon and joined with the Medes and Scythians to overthrow Assyria. In the New Babylonian, or Chaldean, empire, Chaldeans, Aramaeans, and Babylonians became largely indistinguishable._{Please make note of this.}
The adaptation of the North Semitic alphabet to the Aramaic language took place at some time in the 10th century BC, when Aramaic was spoken in several petty kingdoms in northern Mesopotamia and Syria, the most important of them being Dammeshek (Damascus). The process of the reestablishment of the Assyrian Empire and its hegemony over a good part of the Middle East began in the 9th century. One after another, the Aramaean states gave way under Assyrian onslaught. Dammeshek, the last survivor, fell in 732 BC. The end of Aramaean political independence marked the beginning of Aramaean cultural and economic supremacy in western Asia. _At any rate, there is little doubt that the Square Hebrew did derive from the Aramaic alphabet. A distinctive Jewish variety of the Aramaic alphabet that can be regarded as the Square Hebrew script can be traced from the 3rd century BC. It became standardized just before the Christian Era, and it was from this script that the modern Hebrew alphabet, in all its styles, eventually developed. _
As Hebrew speech passed out of daily use (being superseded by Aramaic, which became the vernacular of the Jews) and the knowledge of biblical Hebrew steadily declined, it became necessary to introduce some form of vocalic distinction so that the Bible could be read and explained correctly. _
Here is something I pointed out in a previous posting. The English word "Hebrew" in the New Testament and in the writings of Josephus (which you brought as evidence) is a translation of the word EVRAEEDEE or EVRAEESTEE. In other words, in the Greek language the Jews were called Hebrews. (The Hebrews spoke Hebrew a few hundred years earlier.)
The new Testament reads, "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue" (Acts 22:2 KJV) This means: "the laguage of the Hebrews"
As I explained earlier, "the language of the Mexicans" is Spanish. The Language of the Hebrews (of the Hellenistic era) is Aramean (mixed with Chaldee, Arabic, and some Hebrew words). No language is pure. They all borrowed words from other languages. And the language of the Romans is not Roman. It is Latin.
Josephus wrote:
“Otherwise he was an excellent orator, and thoroughly acquainted with the Greek tongue, as well as with his own country or Roman language.� Josephus, Antiquities, book 19, chapter 2, par. 5, (208). Just because Josephus wrote "the roman language" does not mean that they spoke Roman.
Likewise, just because Josephus wrote he spoke the language of the Hebrews does not mean that the Hebrews spoke Hebrew.
Here is something else:
Here is what Whiston (the translator of Josephus) wrote in a footnote below Josephus’ text: “Had Josephus written even his first edition of these books of the War in pure Hebrew, or had the Jews then used the pure Hebrew at Jerusalem, the Hebrew word for a son is so like that for a stone, ben and eben, that such a correction might have been more easily admitted. But Josephus wrote his former edition for the use of the Jews beyond Euphrates, and so in the Chaldee language, as he did this second edition in the Greek language; and bar was the Chaldee word for son, instead of the Hebrew ben, and was used, not only in Chaldea, etc., but in Judea also, as the New Testament informs us: Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chap. 6, par. 3, (272).
Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1996, c1987). The works of Josephus : Complete and unabridged. Includes index. Peabody: Hendrickson.

The bottom line is: the language of the Palestinians was Aramaic (with various foreign words). Palestinian Jews understood each other.
Spin, you need to change your attitude or we will never communicate again. You are debasing the integrity of this forum.
To all of you that are reading this: if you want people to come to your forum and stay, do not encourage bullies. Raise the level of respect so you can have a scholarly environment.

Pilate

This posting is for the sake of some who are listening:

Matthew's gospel "according to the Hebrews" was written for the Jewish Christians, in the language they used: Aramaic (not Hebrew).
Saint Jerome wrote, “…. I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters."
Saint Jerome mentions that this gospel was written in Aramaic: “In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee {Aramaic} and Syrian language {Aramaic}, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find …� He cautioned “but in Hebrew Characters�: not in Chaldee letters. But the language was Aramaic.
I repeat: the language of the Americans is not American, its English.
The language of the Canadians is not Canadian, its English and French.
Don't confuse the name Hebrews with the Hebrew language.
The language of the Hebrews (this is the name the Greeks used to refer to the Israelites of the Hellenistic era) was not Hebrew. It was Aramaic also called Chaldee. (Don't take my word. I am not an expert. Check your dictionary for the word Chaldee.)
Consider this, along with all the evidence (actual quotations from ancient writers) I presented in previous postings, and if you want more evidence I will give you more. :wave:

judge

I tend to agree.
The aramaic of Matthew appears to contain the correct version of Matthew 1:16.
See here

P.S. check your PM's

Chris Weimer

I must learn to hold my tongue. I must learn to hold me tongue. I must learn to hold my tongue.

spin

Which one?