Jesus: The Missing Years in the East

[angellous_evangellous]

This is really pretty devastating to your entire case.

I found the phrase 'Galilean Aramaic' absolutely hilarious.

godnotgod can't even find a good source by accident.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I found the phrase 'Galilean Aramaic' absolutely hilarious.

As long as we're making up things about languages, we might as well make up the languages too. "Galilean Aramiac" is called what it is to distinguish it from Galilean Greek and Galilean French, two languages spoken widely in Jesus' day which gradually gave rise to the Sumerian Akkadian spoken in Palestine in the 13th century by the 13th warrior.

If I put that on a website, I wonder how long it would take to be quoted here.

 

[YmirGF]

As long as we're making up things about languages, we might as well make up the languages too. "Galilean Aramiac" is called what it is to distinguish it from Galilean Greek and Galilean French, two languages spoken widely in Jesus' day which gradually gave rise to the Sumerian Akkadian spoken in Palestine in the 13th century by the 13th warrior.

If I put that on a website, I wonder how long it would take to be quoted here.

Hahaha. I can just imagine the translation.

"Mon ami, mon ami, why has jew forsaken moi?"

 

[oldbadger]

Do you think Jesus was confirming, via these words, the alleged 'prophecy' of Psalm 22"

There seem to be 'evangelical additions' inserted into the Gospels, attempting to show 'prophesies accomplished', but I'm beginning to wonder about how many examples of OT tampering there may have been.

Instead of writing the gospels 'into' the OT, why not have examples of reversing OT 'prophesies' into the life of Jesus?

For instance, there seem to be varying accounts about the translation of a number of Psalms, and Psalm 22 (Sept 21) seems to be in the cluster.

I wonder about the age of the oldest copy of Psalms (and in what language).......? ......... how the Psalms are paginated, numbered, and actually written......

OT editing or NT adjustment?

 

[oldbadger]

As long as we're making up things about languages, we might as well make up the languages too. "Galilean Aramiac" is called what it is to distinguish it from Galilean Greek and Galilean French, two languages spoken widely in Jesus' day which gradually gave rise to the Sumerian Akkadian spoken in Palestine in the 13th century by the 13th warrior.

If I put that on a website, I wonder how long it would take to be quoted here.

Nah...... it wouldn't work. You wouldn't be able to keep from stretching it out to several pages, and everyone would fall asleep before they could copy the URL. :biglaugh:

:jester5:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Hahaha. I can just imagine the translation.

"Mon ami, mon ami, why has jew forsaken moi?"

Actually, the original was written in Italian-American and read "Bonasera, Bonasera, what have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully?" In the original, Jesus also had a cat and his mouth was stuffed with cotton balls.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wonder about the age of the oldest copy of Psalms (and in what language).......? ......... how the Psalms are paginated, numbered, and actually written......

OT editing or NT adjustment?

According to the Zondervan Bible handbook the Pentateuch was copied into Greek about 400 years prior to Jesus followed eventually by the rest of the Tanach. There is a much better and more extensive article in the Jewish Encyclopedia here: BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I think that altering the Tanach would have been difficult once a second translation came into circulation, so I doubt any changes were made to it to favor Jesus.

 

[oldbadger]

According to the Zondervan Bible handbook the Pentateuch was copied into Greek about 400 years prior to Jesus followed eventually by the rest of the Tanach. There is a much better and more extensive article in the Jewish Encyclopedia here: BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I think that altering the Tanach would have been difficult once a second translation came into circulation, so I doubt any changes were made to it to favor Jesus.

Hi Bricks...... Thing is, Mark doesn't refer to that many prophesies. 3 or 4 from Psalms, 1 or 2 from Isaiah..... the last two prophesies referred to in Mark do not count imo. OK..... Matthew did love to bolt them in wherever possible (wherever impossible!) but G-Mark tends to focus more on a basic report about what Yeshua did.

I know that an Isaiah came up with the DSSs, but the earliest Psalms is what interests me. Folks are discussing the 'adjustments' made to some, including 22. So at this time, I'm without enough info.

I reckon that Yeshua did call out in despair on the cross, and it is to the merit of Christianity that it felt damned if it took this record out. That's what I don't get........ the negative and unhelpful reports which were left in, which restore my trust in so much of G-Mark, and probably others.

 

[godnotgod]

This is really pretty devastating to your entire case. First, this is literally the same thing that is in the Greek NT, only instead of a transliteration from Aramaic into English it's transliterated from Aramaic into Greek. Regardless, the "Aramaic" (Syriac) of the Pe****ta has the same line as the Greek.

Second, what's especially interesting about this is that the Greek version needs more than just a transliteration. Many people read Greek compared to the precious few who read Aramaic. So in the Greek we get the transliteration and the translation: Ἠλὶ ἠλὶ λεμὰ σαβαχθάνι; τοῦτʼ ἔστιν· Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες. The first part is Aramaic, which is followed by a translation beginning with "that is, 'My god, my god, why do you forsake me?"

Here's the curious part. If the Pehistta were some original version, why does it also have both a transliteration and a translation? It makes no sense. Because in the Pe****ta, we find "My god my god, why have you forsaken me, that is, my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" The transliteration that is in the Greek text is there, along with "that is" (which, in the Greek makes sense as the author uses it to go from the transliteration to the translation). Then the text gives the translation. Only, because both lines are in Syriac, the transliteration is a translation and the line is simply repeated.

This makes perfect sense when you realize that the Pe****ta isn't original. It's a translation of the Greek. In the Greek, the line isn't repeated because we first have a transliteration, not a translation. In the Pe****ta, the transliteration into Syriac gives us the translation and the line is simply redundant. Yet it's there. Why? Because it isn't original. It's a translation from the Greek, and the translators faithfully stuck the original line in there even though it doesn't make sense in Syriac.

The pe****ta.org quote is referring to the verse in Galilean Aramaic.

"Eil, Eil, l'mana sh'wik-thani." This is the correct transliteration of the original words of Jesus Christ in Galilean Aramaic.

The Greek transliteration is sabachthani, not sh'wik-thani

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The pe****ta.org quote is referring to the verse in Galilean Aramaic.

"Eil, Eil, l'mana sh'wik-thani." This is the correct transliteration of the original words of Jesus Christ in Galilean Aramaic.

There is no known "Galilean Aramaic" (just some extremely hypothetical and questionably academic reconstructions). More importantly, if the "Aramaic" versions (like the Pe****ta) were original, then this line wouldn't exist. It makes sense I Greek: the author transliterates the line, then translates it. If the "Aramaic" version were original, then we wouldn't have a "transliteration" in it. We do. Why? Because the Pe****ta is translated from Greek, so a line that made sense in Greek is included in the Pe****ta translation even though the line doesn't make sense here.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no such thing as "Galilean Aramaic". More importantly, if the "Aramaic" versions (like the Pe****ta) were original, then this line wouldn't exist. It makes sense I Greek: the author transliterates the line, then translates it. If the "Aramaic" version were original, then we wouldn't have a "transliteration" in it. We do. Why? Because the Pe****ta is translated from Greek, so a line that made sense in Greek is included in the Pe****ta translation even though the line doesn't make sense here.

Which language and dialect did Yeshu speak?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Greek transliteration is sabachthani, not sh'wik-thani

That is not the Greek transliteration. Transliteration means to render a word in one language into the characters (letters) of another. You didn't use Greek letters. The Greek transliteration is in the NT. The word itself is sabachthani (the transliteration is simply a way of rendering the word using other letters; it doesn't change what the word it). You can use Syriac characters, Greek characters, even English characters and it doesn't make the slightest difference. It's the same word and there's no reason for an "original" version to repeat it. Yet the so-called "Aramaic" versions you refer others to does repeat it just like the Greek version. Why? Because it is a translation from the Greek.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Which language and dialect did Yeshu speak?

He likely spoke Aramaic and Hebrew (possibly some Greek). As for the dialect, nobody knows. Certainly not the dialects of any existing "Aramaic" NT manuscripts as these are written in a period of Aramaic that didn't exist until Jesus had been dead for well over a century.

 

[godnotgod]

That is not the Greek transliteration. Transliteration means to render a word in one language into the characters (letters) of another. You didn't use Greek letters. The Greek transliteration is in the NT. The word itself is sabachthani (the transliteration is simply a way of rendering the word using other letters; it doesn't change what the word it). You can use Syriac characters, Greek characters, even English characters and it doesn't make the slightest difference. It's the same word and there's no reason for an "original" version to repeat it. Yet the so-called "Aramaic" versions you refer others to does repeat it just like the Greek version. Why? Because it is a translation from the Greek.

Let's see if I can simplify this somewhat:

The Greek pronunciation of the transliterated word sabachthani seems to be: sah-bahk-tah-ni, which has the meaning of 'forsaken', or very similar.

The Aramaic pronunciation, as per the pe****ta.org reference, seems to be:
sh'wik-thani, which has the meaning of 'destiny', or something similar to that meaning.
That is essentially what the pe****ta.org quote is saying.

IOW, they are NOT the same word.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Greek pronunciation

is the same as the Aramaic. You've seen the word logos before I'd imagine. That's a transliteration. You're supposed to pronounce it the way you would if you saw λόγος. Transliteration simply means that instead of typing λόγος I use English characters. Likewise for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. But transliteration is usually standardized and not just according to pronunciation. For example, the transliteration of Greek uses the letter "o" for the Greek letters omicron and omega. It uses two letters for two of the Greek letters in the Greek transliteration of "sabachthani"- theta and chi. In Mark, the transliteration differs from that in Matthew. That's because both were before standard transliterations we use today. But you can go back to Aramiac and Hebrew lexicons to find that the word in both gospels is "forsaken"

Now, is it possible for you to explain why, if the Pe****ta is original, it copies the Greek transliteration and translation when this doesn't make sense?

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Bricks...... Thing is, Mark doesn't refer to that many prophesies. 3 or 4 from Psalms, 1 or 2 from Isaiah..... the last two prophesies referred to in Mark do not count imo. OK..... Matthew did love to bolt them in wherever possible (wherever impossible!) but G-Mark tends to focus more on a basic report about what Yeshua did.

I know that an Isaiah came up with the DSSs, but the earliest Psalms is what interests me. Folks are discussing the 'adjustments' made to some, including 22. So at this time, I'm without enough info.

I reckon that Yeshua did call out in despair on the cross, and it is to the merit of Christianity that it felt damned if it took this record out. That's what I don't get........ the negative and unhelpful reports which were left in, which restore my trust in so much of G-Mark, and probably others.

WHY would someone who set out to be crucified - and accomplished it - suddenly ask why god had forsaken/abandoned him???

That makes absolutely no sense.

And Psalm 22 is not a foretelling of Jesus.

David has actually done wrong and God has "moved away" not forsaken, or abandoned. There are actually no pierced hands and feet in the verses.

Just as the Isaiah and the virgin, and Emmanuel story, isn't a foretelling of Jesus. Emmanuel is Isaiah's son by the Temple Virgin, whom he was told to go into. A full timeline is given in the story.


*

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi Bricks...... Thing is, Mark doesn't refer to that many prophesies. 3 or 4 from Psalms, 1 or 2 from Isaiah..... the last two prophesies referred to in Mark do not count imo. OK..... Matthew did love to bolt them in wherever possible (wherever impossible!) but G-Mark tends to focus more on a basic report about what Yeshua did.

I know that an Isaiah came up with the DSSs, but the earliest Psalms is what interests me. Folks are discussing the 'adjustments' made to some, including 22. So at this time, I'm without enough info.

Yes, its possible someone changed it. Its only a Psalm after all, not quite as important as the Pentateuch, but keep in mind Christians prized the Psalms dearly (according to the Didache). I think, however, that Jews were often treated badly even then by their neighboring countries; so to me the psalm makes sense in the context of their lives back then. In particular verse 8 "He trusts in the LORD, so let the LORD deliver him..." Really this psalm isn't that different from the story of Job or of Hezekiah or several others. Another thing is that the English translation is a bit weird around verse 16 saying "They pierced my hands and feet" when the Hebrew root isn't 'Pierced' its 'Forged'; so its talking about enslavement originally. It still fits with Jesus upon the cross, but the Psalm was not originally about crosses but about enslavement....probably.

I reckon that Yeshua did call out in despair on the cross, and it is to the merit of Christianity that it felt damned if it took this record out. That's what I don't get........ the negative and unhelpful reports which were left in, which restore my trust in so much of G-Mark, and probably others.

Very upbeat.

 

[oldbadger]

WHY would someone who set out to be crucified - and accomplished it - suddenly ask why god had forsaken/abandoned him???

Hello, Ingledsva. Firstly, I do like your posts. Lots of new ideas and info.....!
Secondly..... At this time, (for me) Yeshua either lost his trust in his Lord, or called out that he had nearly reached his destiny. I'm not a Christian, but do believe that HJ lived.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Well, to a person like me, who believes in HJ but not Christ, it can make sense.

And Psalm 22 is not a foretelling of Jesus.

I think that you are right about this, but it seems as if some evangelists might have edited Psalms 22 and then reversed it into Christianity, hence the production of what some Christians could claim to be a whole prophetic package.

David has actually done wrong and God has "moved away" not forsaken, or abandoned. There are actually no pierced hands and feet in the verses.

I like this proposal. If you are right, then the Psalms 22 in my NIV Bible is gobbledy-gook-waffle. All good stuff!:yes:

Just as the Isaiah and the virgin, and Emmanuel story, isn't a foretelling of Jesus. Emmanuel is Isaiah's son by the Temple Virgin, whom he was told to go into. A full timeline is given in the story.

Excellent! Any debate that moves OT prophesies away from Yeshua's life is highly credible to me.

And so the only point for me to ponder is whether Yeshua was a wonderful man who lost his trust in his Lord on the cross, or whether he was calling out his success, and since I believe in Historical Jesus, I'm drawn to the first of those.


*

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, its possible someone changed it. Its only a Psalm after all, not quite as important as the Pentateuch, but keep in mind Christians prized the Psalms dearly (according to the Didache). I think, however, that Jews were often treated badly even then by their neighboring countries; so to me the psalm makes sense in the context of their lives back then. In particular verse 8 "He trusts in the LORD, so let the LORD deliver him..." Really this psalm isn't that different from the story of Job or of Hezekiah or several others. Another thing is that the English translation is a bit weird around verse 16 saying "They pierced my hands and feet" when the Hebrew root isn't 'Pierced' its 'Forged'; so its talking about enslavement originally. It still fits with Jesus upon the cross, but the Psalm was not originally about crosses but about enslavement....probably.

Thanks Bricks...... all good stuff..... :yes:

Very upbeat.

Wow....Thanks. I'll grow some hair and jazz myself up a bit!

 

[godnotgod]

is the same as the Aramaic. You've seen the word logos before I'd imagine. That's a transliteration. You're supposed to pronounce it the way you would if you saw λόγος. Transliteration simply means that instead of typing λόγος I use English characters. Likewise for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. But transliteration is usually standardized and not just according to pronunciation. For example, the transliteration of Greek uses the letter "o" for the Greek letters omicron and omega. It uses two letters for two of the Greek letters in the Greek transliteration of "sabachthani"- theta and chi. In Mark, the transliteration differs from that in Matthew. That's because both were before standard transliterations we use today. But you can go back to Aramiac and Hebrew lexicons to find that the word in both gospels is "forsaken"

Now, is it possible for you to explain why, if the Pe****ta is original, it copies the Greek transliteration and translation when this doesn't make sense?

Yes, I understand what transliteration is.

You are at odds with some scholars who state that Galilean Aramaic is a real dialect, and also at odds with the pe****ta.org writer (and others) that we are dealing with two different words, whose pronunciatios are distinctly different, with distinctly differing meanings.

What do you say the Aramaic word for 'destiny' is?

(Again, we are off-topic, and this part of the discussion should again be moved to the Aramaic/Greek NT topic)