Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-05-2012, 10:47 PM

Chili digressions split

mountainman split

stephan huller · 02-05-2012, 11:21 PM

I think some Italian author has already suggested the same origin for Jesus from yesh (didn't we used to have Italian speakers come to this forum). Anyway here it is ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=Du7...yeshno&f=false

He clearly makes the same arguments as I do but I can't find any academic credentials for him. The back cover of his book says that he has been 'studying the Bible' for a long time. That's about it.

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 12:41 AM

Quote:

In the Syriac versions the sacramental formula does not exhibit that perfect identity of diction which exists in the four texts of the Greek original. For while Matthew, Luke, and the Epistle to the Corinthians present the same reading, viz., "hunau pagri" (the vowels are to be read according to the Italian or German manner of pronunciation), literally, " This is my body " — the personal pronoun being in the Semitic languages the substitute for the copula " is " — there is, in the Syriac Gospel of St Mark an additional word, viz., "ithauhi" (the italic letter is mute) which expresses 'being.' The words are, "hunu ithauhi pagri," which cannot be translated otherwise than "This is my body." The first word, " hunu," "this," differs from the first Syriac word in the other texts, inasmuch as these have "hunau," a compound of the demonstrative " this" and the personal pronoun " he or it," which is the substitute for the copula. As this personal pronoun is wanting in the composition of the first word in the text of St Mark, the substitute for the copula is supplied by the subsequent word, " ithauhi." This word is not, however, like the English or the Greek copula, the third person singular of the verb " to be ; " it is a word which admits of no variation (ith = to the Hebrew itf* " Yesh," and to the Arabic (jmj! "Ais") and to which are added the pronominal suffixes usually added to a substantive in the plural. If it were required to render the translation of such a form intelligible to a reader unacquainted with Semitic languages, the translation would literally be, " existences of him or it ; " but the signification would necessarily be - "he or it is." In fine, the Syriac version, in all the four texts referred to, yields a full equivalent for the English formula, " This is my body."http://books.google.com/books?id=Mbk...xts%22&f=false

Am I the only one who sees the significance of connecting yesh to the sacraments consumed by the faithful in the hope of perfecting their being?

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 08:58 AM

I have to find what liturgy the referencing but it is certainly intriguing that yeshno (= yeshu?) is connected with the substance of the sacraments which are Jesus

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 12:07 PM

I have email 100 linguistic experts in Israel to explain why yeshno takes the place of the expected form yeshu. I will post them here as the come in. But this is the mythicist breakthrough. There is verb to be in Hebrew. Yesh is the closest thing and when the Church Father's say the name of God translates to “he is” yeshno's displacement of the expected form yeshu is critical. First response from Tel Aviv U:

Not an expert on the matter, however, there are several examples of monosyllabic words which, when inflected or used in derivations, get an additional -n-.Examples: jad 'hand', jadani 'manual' (the -i is the adjectival suffix) ; prat 'detail', partani 'detailed' (same -i suffix), kol 'all', kolelani 'all inclusive' ; rav 'rabbi', rabanim 'rabbis' (-im is the plural suffix). And many more.Hope this is helpful.Evan

I respond

But if you weren't a Hebrew speaker you'd expect yesho for “he/it is”

He answers

Absolutely. The -n- is a weird thing in these cases, not quite sure of its origin in all these cases.-

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 02:00 PM

Another scholar. Getting closer. 98 to go:

I don't know any form other than yeshno, and Samaritan Hebrew also has a form with n. I also see no connection to Aramaic. It must be an internal Hebrew development. My idea is that yesh + hu > yesho was the erstwhile form and then n was added by analogy with enennu = he is not (attested, e.g., in Eccles. 1: 7). But my field of research is Neo-Aramaic rather than Hebrew, and an expert on Hebrew might have another idea.*
Best,
Hezy

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 06:57 PM

Another email response from Israeli scholar, another yesh passage I keep coming across (.
Esther Rabba)

You'll also find it in I Samuel 14:39 and 23:23, and the best known is the one in Esther 3:8, where Haman says to his King: there exist one people...* What Ibn-Ezra writes is understandable, since yeshno is indeed equivalent to yesh, and just adds a pronominal suffix that agrees in gender (i.e., fem. yeshna), but as one who works on ISRAELI Hebrew, I cannot tell you for sure how these inflected forms came about.Shmuel

This is NOT Ibn Ezra's point. Ibn Ezra simply thinks the third person of yesh should be yeshu

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 09:24 PM

There are apparently two versions of the Sepher Yetzirah which - IMO - parallel gnostic myths about the creation of the world:

"He formed from confusion substance (yasar mi-tohu mamasA and made it with fire and there was being (we-yesno,), and hewed out (hasab) great pillars with intangible air. This is a sign".

Other versions have : "He made non-being (eno) into being (yeshno) rather than "made it with fire".

Substitute yeshu for yeshnu and you have Jesus.

Sheshbazzar · 02-06-2012, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Substitute yeshu for yeshnu and you have Jesus

Seems to me, that if you substitute yeshu for yeshnu...you have yeshu.

Until you substitute Jeebus for yeshu. We're not all Greeks you know

.

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 10:26 PM

Another interesting discussion via email (maybe it's only interesting to me because I'm involved):

Quote:

O: The nun does not seem superfluous or non-Hebrew to me. There are 3 other occurances of this form in the Bible. However, Gesenius (Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Dover Publications 2006, p. 296) says that this form is doutful. Maybe the consonants are coorect but the vowel tradition is wrong, and the form shoud be read "yEshennu" - yod tsere, shin segol, nun dagesh, vav shuruk.

S: But wouldn't the expected form be yesho?

O: Yes, if you think of the suffixes of the noun and the preposition. But look at the second half of the verse you have quoted: the suffix of the word "ein" also contains the letter nun. Gesenius calls this nun: nun energicum. It sometimes appears in the suffix of the verb. Gesenius, p. 509. It seems very plausible to me that the suffix of the word "yesh" is similar to that of the word "ein". Also, the fact that there are 4 occurances of the form "yeshno" (or "yeshennu") in the Bible and no occurance of the form "yesho" makes it hard to believe that the nun is superfluous.

S: Some of this may be true. I was just wondering what Ibn Ezra was thinking

O: Ibn Ezra felt that something was not quite right with this form, and his commentary is important for pointing this out. However, his solution in this matter does not seem plausible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2012, 10:47 PM	#171
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Chili digressions split mountainman split

02-05-2012, 11:21 PM	#172
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think some Italian author has already suggested the same origin for Jesus from yesh (didn't we used to have Italian speakers come to this forum). Anyway here it is ... http://books.google.com/books?id=Du7...yeshno&f=false He clearly makes the same arguments as I do but I can't find any academic credentials for him. The back cover of his book says that he has been 'studying the Bible' for a long time. That's about it.

02-06-2012, 08:58 AM	#174
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have to find what liturgy the referencing but it is certainly intriguing that yeshno (= yeshu?) is connected with the substance of the sacraments which are Jesus

02-06-2012, 12:07 PM	#175
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have email 100 linguistic experts in Israel to explain why yeshno takes the place of the expected form yeshu. I will post them here as the come in. But this is the mythicist breakthrough. There is verb to be in Hebrew. Yesh is the closest thing and when the Church Father's say the name of God translates to “he is” yeshno's displacement of the expected form yeshu is critical. First response from Tel Aviv U: Not an expert on the matter, however, there are several examples of monosyllabic words which, when inflected or used in derivations, get an additional -n-.Examples: jad 'hand', jadani 'manual' (the -i is the adjectival suffix) ; prat 'detail', partani 'detailed' (same -i suffix), kol 'all', kolelani 'all inclusive' ; rav 'rabbi', rabanim 'rabbis' (-im is the plural suffix). And many more.Hope this is helpful.Evan I respond But if you weren't a Hebrew speaker you'd expect yesho for “he/it is” He answers Absolutely. The -n- is a weird thing in these cases, not quite sure of its origin in all these cases.-

02-06-2012, 02:00 PM	#176
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another scholar. Getting closer. 98 to go: I don't know any form other than yeshno, and Samaritan Hebrew also has a form with n. I also see no connection to Aramaic. It must be an internal Hebrew development. My idea is that yesh + hu > yesho was the erstwhile form and then n was added by analogy with enennu = he is not (attested, e.g., in Eccles. 1: 7). But my field of research is Neo-Aramaic rather than Hebrew, and an expert on Hebrew might have another idea.* Best, Hezy

02-06-2012, 06:57 PM	#177
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another email response from Israeli scholar, another yesh passage I keep coming across (. Esther Rabba) You'll also find it in I Samuel 14:39 and 23:23, and the best known is the one in Esther 3:8, where Haman says to his King: there exist one people...* What Ibn-Ezra writes is understandable, since yeshno is indeed equivalent to yesh, and just adds a pronominal suffix that agrees in gender (i.e., fem. yeshna), but as one who works on ISRAELI Hebrew, I cannot tell you for sure how these inflected forms came about.Shmuel This is NOT Ibn Ezra's point. Ibn Ezra simply thinks the third person of yesh should be yeshu

02-06-2012, 09:24 PM	#178
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There are apparently two versions of the Sepher Yetzirah which - IMO - parallel gnostic myths about the creation of the world: "He formed from confusion substance (yasar mi-tohu mamasA and made it with fire and there was being (we-yesno,), and hewed out (hasab) great pillars with intangible air. This is a sign". Other versions have : "He made non-being (eno) into being (yeshno) rather than "made it with fire". Substitute yeshu for yeshnu and you have Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.