Toto

I am not using the Amazon review to disprove the derivation of Bethesda, which I have no opinion on. I am using it to indicate that Thayer's is not an undisputed authority.

cass256

I thought Jews were not Assyrian, Wasn't it Israel that Jesus claimed were the only ones he came for? The lost sheep (tribes) of the house of Israel, who had been dispalced by the Assyrians?.

the Jews were from babylon.. the house of judah, which was what? Judah and Benjamin and some Levites? The rest were the dispersion, 10 tribes lost.

cass256

Well, maybe I shuold have said that an Amazon opinion can't hold much weight against any Authority that has not been proven to be disputed by another Authority , especially on the topic being disputed. I'll still wait for another Authority to be posted with specifics. I'm not paying 125 to find out for myself.

Toto

A casual web search turns up this discussion on whether Bethesda is derived from Hebrew or Aramaic:

Bethesda with reply, which are mostly too technical for me.

cass256

So Spin, If you were Yeshua, or Yeshuwhoever, either son of Man, or Son of God, and you were from youth teaching your elders in the temple, reading Hebrew "Scripture", and sent on a mission by God "the Father", who is either your father, part of you, or a stranger... While you are crying out to the God of your templehood as you take your last breaths, as man/god or whatever... being sacrificed... You would irreverently cry out to him in Syriac, aramaic or some dialect to tell him that he has deserted you? or in the language your supposed Father gave to his people, would you make your last bold statement in Hebrew, the holy spiritual language given by YHWH your father to communicate?

Even if it is to quote Psalm 22, wouldn't it be specifically using the hebrew of the Psalm? Out of respect and to make a point? That is, if he was a willing sacrifice and did not think his god had let him down....

Doesn't a lack of at least biblical Hebrew by yeshu seem a bit weak? That is, if he was in fact calling to his God..Father..who if the god of the Old Testament was YHWH for the most part. At least the one requiring blood was YHWH and not EL. no?

Pilate

Cass,
can you please explain this a little different?

spin

You're asking me to watch the hand as I'm being drawn and intuit what it's going to have me do in the next frame. If I knew my Hebrew bible, I may think this is a good opportunity to use that line from Ps 22.

Yup.

Naaa, it's a great line. Too good not to get used. Respect? Why? Make a point? I'm being drawn. I make no points that I can remember. If someone puts Greek in my mouth then that's what comes out. Hebrew, then Hebrew comes out. Aramaic, why should I be adverse to that idea? You draw the speach bubble and fill it in, so I say it.

The dramatic effect is strong anyway, wouldn't you think?

The two were equated I think by the ninth c. BCE.


spin

cass256

Well, Take Strong's for instance. I don't know which came first the dictionary or the concordance, but they were doing bible words, and I would have though as they found Bethesda to add to the list they would have seen it was referred to as being in the Hebrew and make a note.
But, I do not know how these things are done, so maybe not. At any rate, I would expect, if it was Hebrew in the least, the link to the Hebrew numbers.

On John, I think anyone who reads john, from his very first paragraphs,is taken by the difference in his whole style of writing, and thinking. I have read many times the suggestion that this style of writing and thought type is very Hellenistic. I'm not certain that it was john who meant "in the Hebrew tongue", or if he was just too Greek to even know any Hebrew and he literally meant Hebrew.. That is only quick opinion on my part. I have never really spent time researching the authorship beyond seeing that there are many varying opinions on who the writers were, of much of the NT as well as the Old. If I didn't know better, i'd suspect Paul was actually Josephus. So don't mind me, I see conspiracy everywhere.

cass256

Well, that is partly what has me doubting wether any of the writers were witnesses, if it happened at all.

yes, but I didn't watch Mel gibson's, passion. I may have to get it for that line alone, now. Did you happen to see it and which line they used?

Taking for a moment, that jesus was real..
Even, if he would have been finalizing with a psalm, to choose the one where his god forsakes him has to be saying more then; Hey I'm jesus and I know the bible.
Yes, but they weren't originally, which makes me wonder which one was jesus' god. again, if jesus was real. The Northern tribes were said to have worshipped El, as well as the tribesmen Murdered by Moses at the mountain of YaHWeH or Baal

Which also leads to his name having been yaHshua, when the prophecy said his name would be El is with us...ImmanuEL or however it was spelled in Hebrew or Aramaic...

If Jesus was the son of Yahweh he would have yelled Father or at least blurt out the true name of his God.

The fact that he would say my El, makes me wonder a bit more, about the fact that he said he came for none but the lost sheep of IsraEL. That may leave out all who worshipped Yahweh.

oh well... something for me to look into. How Yahwistic was jesus... if he existed

Pilate

There are different variations of the Name Bethesda, but the one that John gave, Strong's says, is a Chaldee (Armaic word). Strong's mentions another variation of the name (i.e. other people may have called Bethesda with a Hebrew name "Baithan"). The Semitic languages of the time of Jesus are "frozen speciments." And several auhtoritative dictionaries were written.
Those languages have not changed to make the dictionaries obsolete, except to the extent that we have discovered a few new meanings, or discovered a few new words, etc. Dismissing the authority of established dictionaries (people spent lifetimes to build them) is something that is not lightly to be taken, especially in this environment.
A word of caution about this environment (this forum):
This is not a scholarly environment, where you do not know who is handing you information, and where people are allowed to boo someone's information. Whosever information the crowd of this forum accepts becomes the official creed here.(This is definitely not a process of discovery.) This is not the place to come up with new innovations in the field etymology. There is a place for this work: the universities. That is what they are for.
All you can expect here is to learn the basics and get a few leads, referrences to authoritative sources, or ancient citations, which you can use to enhance your knowledge. My advise, when it comes to advanced research in the field of languages, do not adopt the judgment of anyone here, not even mine.

As for the Gospel of John: there are many scholars who link it with the Gnostics of Egypt (to our knowledge: it was, very likely, first used by them, and perhaps was edited by them).I am giving you what many scholars have found (and I have done some homework):
The first 19 verses of John (the Prologue) and the last chapter (the Epilogue) are clear additions. All gospels have undergone editing and augmenting, and John is not an exception. The language and grammr of John is refined and the style distinctly allegorical and rhetorical. Roughly speaking (that's all I can do here) it sounds like a product of a sophist, with a few concepts and words of Gnosticim. The writer and the audience of this gospel, are non Palestinian. (I did not make up these things from the top of my head. I consulted multiple sources.)