spin

You don't read. You just give your knee-jerk reaction. That knee should trade you in.


spin

judge

Hi again aspirin.
On doing some more research it appears I was wrong about the dialects.

The jews in Judea spoke a dialect commonly called Chaldaic. This was because the jews had been captive in babylon. This is also called Imperial Mesopotamian Aramaic

This was different to the Assyrian dialect, spoken by samaritans and galileans with their Assyrian populants.

The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon entry for "Eil":

)yl#3 N > )l N
)l N
1 ImpArMesop,Palestinian,Syr god


Syrian is what the greeks called the Assyrians.

Aspirin99

Thanks for your work on this matter.

danrael

Perhaps someone more knowledgable here can elaborate on the following version:

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but what he cried out in his last breath sounded to those at the foot of the cross like something else in Hebrew, which was very similiar, which translates as: "For this I was saved.", as if Jesus, after all He has gone through, only now comes to full realization of what it all means. For him to have cried out: "Why hast thou forsaken me." are the words of a man who is lost. Jesus has full knowledge of his fate after death, so why would he feel abandoned and forsaken. I would tend to go along with the much more powerful "For this I was saved" version as words fitting to what the Lamb of God would really be saying, for this brings it all home.

judge

Probably. All four gospels,even the greek versions, record him speaking in Aramaic. They contain poetry that rhymes in Aramaic.
Pauls letters,even in greek, contain Aramaic words and poetry that rhymes in Aramaic.
A Galilean would have spoken Aramaic.


I have seen three native Aramaic speakers translate these words. All of them translate it something like what you suggest here. None of them translate the words as they are translated in the greek (and english versions).

I would have to go and check the exact reasoning, which I can do if you are that interested.

spin

If Jesus lived he may have spoken Aramaic, though, if the gospels reflect anything historical, they are all in Greek.

We have three different sets of last words for Jesus,

"My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?"

"Father into your hands I commit my spirit."

"It is finished."

(They had to give him something dramatic to say.)

There is no sign from anyone of the alternative you offer.


spin

judge

Actually I need to correct myself again. I have seen three native Aramaic speakers translate this and although none of them translate it as "Why hast thou forsaken me" only one of them, George Lamsa, translates it as a statement rather than a question.

But lamana seems to clearly denote a question as can be seen from it's uses in the peshitta of Matthew.


He said to them, "Lamana are you afraid, you men of little faith?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm. (Mattai 8:26)
When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Lamana is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" (Mattai 9:11)
Then the disciples of John came to Him, asking, "Lamana do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" (Mattai 9:14)
And the disciples came and said to Him, "Lamana do You speak to them in parables?" (Mattai 13:10)
Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, Lamana did you doubt?" (Mattai 14:31)
Lamana do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. (Mattai 15:2)
And He answered and said to them, "Lamana do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (Mattai 15:3)
Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Lamana could we not drive it out?" (Mattai 17:19)
They said to Him, "Lamana then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" (Mattai 19:7)
But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, "Lamana this waste? (Mattai 26:8)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eil, Eil, Lamana Shwaqthani?" (Mattai 27:46)

spin

Isn't it funny how poetry translated from Greek, Latin, French, Italian and even Persian often rhyme in English? But then again, they sually didn't rhyme in the orginal. Rhyming is a relatively late requirement in poetry.

Unless of course the speaker spoke Hebrew or Greek as some Galileans did.

Pity. But then they are translating a translation, so you can see variation creeping in.

This lmn) has so many different equivalents in the Greek, I wonder how those wily Greek umm... translators got all the different forms...? (Might give it a study.)


spin

Pilate

More specifically, Jesus spoke Aramaic with a Galilean accent. (This accent was identifiable by the Judaeans: at the trial of Jesus, when Peter was hanging around the yard of Caiaphas, a woman identified him as a Glileean.)

Jesus spoke the language of Palestine: Aramaic. Only foreigners would not have understood this (perhaps some Roman soldiers).

Mark was not a Galilean. He was NOT a disciple of Jesus and was not part of Jesus' background. He was probably a Hellenist Jew (like Paul) because he understood Aramaic. He was the intepreter of Peter, according to tradition, in Rome, a decade or two after Jesus' death.
Like all the gospels, Mark's gospel was not written for Palestinian Jews (the followers of Jesus). It was written for Greek speaking citizens of the Roman Empire. (For this reason he translates certain sayings from Aramaic to Greek.
Mark was not from Palestine. He was ignorant of geographical locations.)
Matthew copied from Mark and made some changes to fit his taste.(There is hard evidence for this.)
There is no Galileean Aramaic and Judean Aramaic. The difference was just a matter of pronunciation.
Not quite: El was originally the god of the Canaanites; the god of the priest-king Melchizedek in Jerusalem. At that time gods were local. And if you moved to an area, you had to accept the god of that locality. So when Abraham came to Jerusalem (it was called Salem at that time) he had to adopt the god of Melchizedek, and he paid tithes to Melchizedek (it was like the Mafia collecting dues in their teritorry!). The Hebrews inherited "the god of their father" Abraham. Centuries later, Moses introduced the Hebrews to Yahweh (he met Yahweh at Mount Sinai ... when Moses went to relieve himself behind a bush ... the bush caught on fire and Yahweh jumped out! .. Sorry! I got sacriligius ... but I could not help it. It was too tempting! :rolling: ). There is hard evidence of this within the Bible (you just have to use the microscope to see it, or have someone show it to you. If you want to read about this online goto:
http://www.jesushistory.info/history...aham_moses.htm
(Andrew Benson's book) The page is titled
"The History of God from Abraham to Moses."
Yes, the word El from a name became a noun. Just like "Kleenex": it is a name of tissue. But many people took it and turned it into a noun; "Give me a Kleenex, please."
The Jews became, eventually, monotheistic after they were exposed to Zoroastrianism (during their exile to Babylon). After that, they "remodelled" their Holy Scriptures, but they left some 'incriminating evidence' of polytheism in their writings.
You can learn about this subject on the web-site I posted above. It is part of other pages titled "How Judaism Began and Evolved Into Christianity. Andrew Benson's book "The Origins of Christianity and the Bible" has several chapters that explain the evolution of the Judaic beliefs.

None of the authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus is Yahweh.
This claim is a Christian Fundamentalist intepretation of the Scriptures.

Yes. The study of the 'sons of God" goes back to the Canaanite god El.
The term "son of God" in the days of Jesus did not have the meaning it has today.
I will refer you again to Andrew Benson's book, which you can read online.
Go to:
http://www.prudentialpublishing.info...son_of_god.htm
This page is titled "What Did 'Son of God' Mean in Jesus' Time. And is part of the pages: How Jesus Was Turned into God.
shalom :notworthy

spin

This could mean that, unlike Jerusalemites of the time, Galileans spoke Aramiac.

Neither the DSS which were 85% written in Hebrew -- three different dialects of Hebrew --, nor Josephus agree with this erroneous claim. Josephus tells us he spoke to the people of Jerusalem in the Hebrew language (BJ 6.2.1/6.96).

There is nothing in Mk that would indicate that its writer knew a Semitic language, despite the few magic words such as "little girl, come". All he would have needed was the initial input from someone who did.

If the writer of Mk understood Aramaic, why would he give the mixed form eloi eloi lama sabaxQani, where lama is from Hebrew and should be lemono in Aramaic? Perhaps it was a different dialect? But the logic in Aramaic is the same as that in Hebrew, each are formed from two parts l- "for/to" and Hebr. mh, Aram. mn (see Ezr 5:4) meaning "what/who/(etc)".

But then how would we know from the gospel information?

The god of Melkizedek was )l (lywn, El Elyon, not your common everyday El. And when was the Melkizedek passage added to Genesis? No equivalent exists in Jubilees. El Elyon was used quite a lot in the 2nd c. BCE, as judged from the frequency of the Greek Qeos husistos in Jewish sources and the prevalence of El Elyon in the DSS. What would ever make one think that the Melkizedek story was any earlier than the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, in which El Elyon was frequently used, but almost never used in the bible except for the Melkizedek story.

While it is quite possible that Hebrew monotheism was ultimately derived from the Persians, the problem is to know when the change took place. Was Ezekiel in Babylon when he talked of awful practices "under every green tree"? Obviously we are in post-exilic Yehud and polytheistic practices were all the vogue.

It meant what it had always meant in Hebrew, the product of a human, mortal, man-type. This is how it was used disparagingly in Ezekiel, this is how it was used literally in Dan 7 with "one like a son of man", ie in human form as compared to the ones like various animals; it is how it is used in the Hebrew of the DSS. One has to leave a Hebrew context before bn )dm can mean something else. One has to garble the text of Dan 7.


spin