Pe****ta Primacy, Palistinian Prophet, & why Jesus didn't speak Syriac

[godnotgod]

Compared to Alexander, whose expertise on 1st century Aramaic is clearly indicated by the fact that he "entered college and finally graduated in 1970, from the San Francisco State University, with a BA in Filmmaking".



"Yes, I do understand Aramaic to a profound level. I went to an Aramaic language school. It was a Presbyterian Church school. Our two teachers were both from Urmia, Iran, where the Aramaic language scholarship was the dominant force in Ashurai cultural life and where most of our best literary people came from. I studied religion and language from the first grade, in the language Jesus spoke!" (from Alexander's site)

Despite Alexander's inability to even write English well

Spoiler: two examples

(you don't "understand to a profound level" in idiomatic English, nor can one have "studied religion and language from the first grade" in idiomatic English)

, we're supposed to trust that his Iranian teachers in a Presbyterian school taught a first grader Galilean Aramaic (and in addition, the dialect Jesus spoke)? When did Iranians start speaking Galilean Aramaic? Also, an FYI- Jesus didn't speak Galilean Aramaic. All of our sources for the Aramaic in his day (and at least a century before and after) indicate that Jesus' dialect was closer to the Aramaic of the Qumran scrolls than to Galilean Aramaic (which is attested mainly after the 4th century and in places like Cairo and Babylon).


So why did he have to be taught it?



The Ashurai, with it's key cities: "three capitals, Ashur, Nimrud and Nineveh." Here's the problem: while we have a great deal of attestation of the use of Akkadian in those areas, our evidence for Aramaic goes back to the 11th century BCE in Aramaean states (hence "Aramaic") in what is now portions of Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, & Jordan. So while "his people" left plenty of traces that they spoke Akkadian and none that they did Aramaic, we do find Aramaic in the same time period your source claims to "his people" were speaking Aramaic.
Of course, this was "Old Aramaic" (not the language of Jesus). Did he learn this from Iranian priests in first grade too?


Which we know of thanks to epigraphic, literary, and epistolary sources from the 4th century onwards in places from Palestine to Babylon.


Because a film student who received his degree here yet can't write idiomatic English can be trusted in his claim to have studied Galilean Aramaic in first grade from Iranian priests.

Oh, and in addition to Galilean Aramaic studied Old Aramaic and the Aramaic of Jesus' day.

I gave him as a source as he is more akin to sources you use. There are other people who were raised speaking modern Aramaic and who went on two study ancient Aramaic. Lots of them. You ignore them because you trust the linguistic knowledge of a film student whose English is poor despite receiving his degree here. And you trust that Iranian priests taught him Jesus' language in 1st grade in a Presbyterian church.

Why do you trust a film student? Because we can't trust people who "live and breath Aramaic" but who go on to study Semitic languages as academics. We can't trust archaeology which shows that your source's incompetence when it comes to English is matched only by his pathetic knowledge historical linguistics, Semitic languages, or anything other than modern Aramaic read back into Syriac that he claims to be Galilean Aramaic without even the basic competency in historical studies of Aramaic to know that "Galilean Aramaic" dates from about 200 years after Jesus.


Your source was born in first century Galilee? If it matters where someone was born, then why pick a film student who claims to have learned that language Jesus spoke in 1st grade from 2 Iranians?



The word in the Pe****ta isn't rope. It cannot mean rope. It can mean a wooden plank. I guest the Pe****ta doesn't make sense.

And yet YOU are the one who admitted that ropes are made of camel hair. In light of everything else, it is pretty obvious that the Greek scribes mistakenly used 'camel' instead of 'rope'.

(just so you know- that "heavy rope" idea came from Hassan bar Bahlul's Lexicon syriacum. I've given you the page number where we find this medieval attempt to make your sources word refer to "rope" even though it is never used to mean rope. Ever.

Yes indeedy! A film student who speaks the language in his native country compared to a librarian who provides no reference to where his 'translation' abilities originate from, only that he is a resident of NJ. And so I trust Alexander (and Roth, a native speaker) far more than either Caruso or you combined even.

And as previously pointed out in the essay reproduced elsewhere by Roth, he uses the Aramaic word 'Miltha' just as Alexander does, which reveals a meaning which makes far more sense than do the Greek texts. Miltha also makes more sense from a purely spiritual point of view outside of any sectarian viewpoint.

BTW, 'wooden plank' is not the word; 'beam' is. In either case, as Roth has so eloquently pointed out, the metaphor of an unraveled rope CAN go through the eye of a needle 'easier than' a rich man can, 'easier' being the operative word here. Neither 'wooden plank' nor 'beam' nor 'camel' can do so in any way imaginable.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A film student who speaks the language in his native country

You are a native speaker of English, correct? What does this say?

That is English. It's English over a 1,000 years after Jesus. Unlike the Pe****ta, which uses a completely a completely different alphabet than the Aramaic of Jesus' day, it uses the modern English alphabet with the exception of 3letters (thorn, eth, and yogh). Can you read it? No?

Ok, let's fast forward ~500 years. Here's more English that you, as a native English speaker, should be able to read:

It's English and with only English letters. Surely, if we can expect a speaker 2,000 years after Jesus to use modern (Aramaic) Syriac to understand an Eastern Aramaic dialect to understand a descendent of a Western Aramaic dialect ~200 years after Jesus written in a different alphabet with different pronunciations (not to mention linguistic influence from the Greek of Jesus' day), you should be able to read an English text written using the English alphabet from a mere ~500 years ago?

No?

Then you must have good reasons for thinking that a speaker of modern Eastern (Syriac) Aramaic can understand the how Galilean Aramaic (which didn't exist in Jesus' day) so perfectly that he is somehow able to understand how a different dialect was spoken ~200 years Earlier.

So perhaps you can explain why the Aramaic transliteration abba found in the Greek NT is an accurate pronunciation of Western "Galilean" Aramaic of Jesus' day, but not even of the language of the Pe****ta, let alone your film student? No?

Or perhaps you can explain how he has approached variants between manuscripts, such as the 300+ variant readings between just two Pe****ta codices (Ms BN syr. 30 and Codex Phillipps 1388)? No?

What about Matt. 12:40 and the fact that the Greek expression "n days & n nights" is idiomatic Western Aramaic, not Eastern (including Syriac) Aramaic yet we find the Pe****ta imitating the Greek? Why don't we find imama, which would be idiomatic of the language of the Pe****ta? Can you explain that?

In fact, can you explain how the "native language" of your source differs from or is similar to any dialect of Aramaic? After all, there are other modern Aramaic dialects and the language of the Pe****ta is but one of several Eastern Aramaic dialects (compared to the Western dialects of that time, ~3rd-5th century) and that's without getting into the actual dialects of Jesus' day. How does your source's Aramaic compare with "Galilean Aramaic" (a Western dialect of around the 3rd century found throughout Palestine and beyond), vs. e.g., Samaritan Aramaic?

And so I trust Alexander (and Roth, a native speaker)

A native speaker of what? "Aramaic"? You're a native speaker of English and you can't read English of 500 years ago but Roth is a native speaker of a dialect of Aramaic that died out in ~200 CE?

far more than either Caruso or you combined even.

Clearly you trust Roth more. The issue is whether you have any justification, evidence, or reason to. You don't know anything about Aramaic. You don't know anything about comparative or historical linguistics. You don't know anything about Greek. You can't read any of the relevant texts. You have no familiarity with any manuscript traditions. You have no idea what methods exist for determining the influences on or between linguistic communities or textual traditions. You reject scholarship out of hand (despite the fact that your rely on sources who lie about their use of actual experts). You still can't explain why the Syriac texts copy the Greek when the Greek gives a transliteration of the Aramaic and then a Greek translations and so you can't explain why find the Pe****ta "translates" the language it is written in order to copy the Greek.

reveals a meaning which makes far more sense than do the Greek texts

How would you know? You can't read Greek any more than you can any dialect of any semitic language, let alone Late (Eastern) Aramaic (let alone Syriac, one dialect of Late Eastern Aramaic).

BTW, 'wooden plank' is not the word; 'beam' is.

Really? Feel free to give me any uses of the word and explain why ܓܡܠܐ is better understood in the contexts you've found it as "beam" rather than "wooden plank" (and, while you are at it, why it's also used to refer to a measure of length and the other animals it can refer to and how so).

In either case

In either case the Pe****ta doesn't use a word that can mean rope. Feel free to provide an example in the centuries of Syriac literature that don't try to explain the ways Syriac fails here as this:

the metaphor of an unraveled rope CAN go through the eye of a needle 'easier than' a rich man can, 'easier' being the operative word here. Neither 'wooden plank' nor 'beam' nor 'camel' can do so in any way imaginable.

means that the Pe****ta is at best using a word that means "camel" and the Greek manuscripts usually do as well, and at worst we should find rope and we never do in any Pe****ta manuscript but we do in some Greek manuscripts.

 

[godnotgod]

...the Pe****ta is at best using a word that means "camel" and the Greek manuscripts usually do as well, and at worst we should find rope and we never do in any Pe****ta manuscript but we do in some Greek manuscripts.

The Aramaic word gamla can mean camel, a large rope or a beam.

The Greek word for camel is kamelos, while for rope it is kamilos, the idea being that the Greek scribe made an obvious mistake.

 

[godnotgod]

...you must have good reasons for thinking that a speaker of modern Eastern (Syriac) Aramaic can understand the how Galilean Aramaic (which didn't exist in Jesus' day) so perfectly that he is somehow able to understand how a different dialect was spoken ~200 years Earlier.

You referred to Stephen Caruso as one who accused Alexander as a fraud, and it is this same librarian (that's the extent of his credentials) who claims to be a 'translator' of Galilean Aramaic, a dialect you claim is non-existent. Here is how Caruso explains his methodology:

"I base my presuppositions[!]* for Old Galilean first upon on what we know of Middle/Byzantine Galilean and "peel back" to earlier layers by reviewing accounts from Rabbinic and Biblical sources, as well as cross-referencing other related dialects such as Samaritan and Christian Palestinian Aramaic."

Pe****ta.org • View topic - Victor Alexander's Aramaic New Testament

So if you are going to allow credence to a librarian from New Jersey with no other qualifying credentials as a translator of Galilean Aramaic whose technique is to 'peel back' language, then you will have to include Alexander, who as a native speaker of Aramaic is far more qualified (and not unaware of some of the points you have made re: archaic dialects), in your list:

"Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah) spoke Aramaic. Of course, this was two thousand years ago, the language has evolved and today it is like old English; it sounds very different. I call it Ancient Aramaic. The Ancient Church of the East, that emerged out of Jerusalem at the end of the Apostolic Age, referred to it as Leeshana Ateeqah or the "old tongue." It is still used in the liturgy, although it is explained in the modern vernacular by the priests and deacons during church services. There are some priests and bishops that know how to read it. It comes in many dialects of the Middle East and Africa, from the Eastern Churches, and from the Orthodox churches. Nobody speaks this language anymore -- not the ancient form of it. Those who claim to speak Aramaic, are only speaking modern versions of the language, just as nobody speaks Old English or even Middle English anymore. Nobody speaks Koine Greek, Old Norse, or Old German, and so on. These languages have all evolved. And so today one also finds Hebrew and Aramaic spoken by millions of people in the Middle East, but these are modern versions of the language. They don't sound the same as Ancient Aramaic. The roots of many words are the same and the old form can be learned. This I have done, so I can read the Scriptures and translate them faithfully. Actually, the Scriptures have preserved the Ancient Aramaic language, and the language has preserved the Scriptures.

Eashoa (Jesus) spoke in the Galilean dialect of Ancient Aramaic, because that is where he grew up. In fact, all the disciples were Galilean Jews, and so it is obvious that they would record the sayings of Eashoa (Jesus) in their language. So the New Testament was recorded in Ancient Aramaic and later translated into Koine Greek, which is a form of Greek more akin to Aramaic, as it was heavily influenced by Aramaic.**

The translation that you will find on this website is made from the original Ancient Aramaic Scriptures directly into English. It is translated from the manuscripts of the Ancient Church of the East, which survived the persecutions by the Roman and Greek pagans of the early centuries of Christianity. It survived the persecution of the Roman Church under Constantine and the early Emperors of Rome in the 4th and 5th centuries. It survived the persecution of the Crusaders who attacked the Holy Lands in subsequent centuries. Finally, this early Church ended up in Persia and was protected by the Persian kings until the upheavals of the Islamic conquests starting in the 7th Century drove the Ancient Church of the East into the mountain strongholds of Asia Minor (Ottoman Empire and later Turkey). The Church of the East survived and maintained the Scriptures in the original language all through the conquests of the Mongolians (Genghis Khan) 12th Century, and the Tartars (Tamerlane) 15th Century. The Church of the East had spread the faith in Eashoa all the way to China, from the 5th to the 8th Century. The Church of the East survived the Islamic conquests of the Fertile Crescent and the Holy Lands.

While Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Ancient Church of the East was also struggling against the forces of darkness. However, the Church continued to spread the teachings of Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah) and the knowledge of the Scriptures throughout the ages.

This Church has miraculously survived to this day. The descendants of Ashur continue to read the Scriptures in their language, the language that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Eashoa (Jesus) spoke, the language of all the Prophets of the Scriptures who prophesied about Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah.) They are in all parts of the world. They no longer have a country, but they maintain their language in various dialects. The ancient Scriptures were maintained in the original language, the mother tongue that was spoken in Mesopotamia and the surrounding regions from the beginning of recorded history. The language started out as pictures (pictographic writing), evolved into symbols (cuneiform) and finally became alphabetical in Nineveh at about 800 BC. The Phoenicians used this language for trade; it spread and became the dominant language of the Holy Lands at the time of Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah.)"


Aramaic Bible, Disciples New Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Jonah, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Malachi.

*presupposition: a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.

**which may explain why Aramaic words show up in the (Koine) Greek texts.
*****

Update: Well, OK, I'll give Caruso a bit more credit, but his formal education is only as a librarian, and does not seem to include any language other than his native English. He seems to have become 'proficient' in some Aramaic dialects on his own, and which is highly questionable, perhaps even fraudulent:

Education:
MLIS, Rutgers University, 2009
Concentrations: Language [?], Storage and Retrieval, Human-Computer Interaction.

B.A. Information Technology and Informatics, Rutgers University, 2006
Majors: Information Technology and Informatics, Religion
Concentrations: Human-Computer Interaction, Data-Driven Web Applications, Early Judeo-Christianity, Historical Jesus

Language Skills and Competences:
First language: English.

Advanced knowledge [?] of Biblical Aramaic, Classical Syriac Aramaic, Galilean Aramaic ("Jewish Palestinian Aramaic"), and several Jewish Aramaic dialects.

Proficient [?] in various other Aramaic dialects including Old Aramaic, Classical Mandaic Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic. Also proficient in Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew.

Basic knowledge of Swadaya (Neo-Aramaic), Turoyo (Neo-Aramaic), and Ma'loula (Neo-Aramaic).

 

[gnostic]

It is a complete joke to think that modern Aramaic is exactly the same as that of Aramaic used in Jesus' days.

Seriously, 1st grade, godnotgod?

It is bald-face by Victor Alexander, but you can't see it?

Alexander's lies have reeled you in, hook, line and sinker. And it's sad to see.

 

[godnotgod]

It is a complete joke to think that modern Aramaic is exactly the same as that of Aramaic used in Jesus' days.

Seriously, 1st grade, godnotgod?

It is bald-face by Victor Alexander, but you can't see it?

Alexander's lies have reeled you in, hook, line and sinker. And it's sad to see.

That's not what Alexander said. You're not paying attention. Now perk up a bit. Go back, re-read, then report back.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You referred to Stephen Caruso as one who accused Alexander as a fraud

I also said why:

I'm going to try something new. If I quoted some academic source you'd just write it off as you have so often.

I normally refer you to experts only to hear about "indoctrination" or similar at least borderline conspiracy theory explanations for why can't trust linguists, philologists, classicists, Near Easter studies specialists, Biblical scholars, NT scholars, early Christian scholars, etc..

So I tried another tact: I went with someone who hasn't been "indoctrinated" into academia, who is dedicated Jesus' Aramaic and the Aramaic NT, and whose work is like your sources (e.g., non-academic blogs).

Imagine my surprise, then, to find this:

and it is this same librarian (that's the extent of his credentials)

You impugn his reliability, dismissing him as a "librarian" (ignoring his work teaching Aramaic and all the rest) and justify this with reference to his lack of credentials.

I don't know which to find more bizarre: the fact that I have countless times presented you with credentialed experts and you have dismissed them because of their credentials, or the fact that in this case your source's expertise (insofar as he can even be said to have any) is working a video camera.

"I base my presuppositions[!]* for Old Galilean first upon on what we know of Middle/Byzantine Galilean and "peel back" to earlier layers by reviewing accounts from Rabbinic and Biblical sources, as well as cross-referencing other related dialects such as Samaritan and Christian Palestinian Aramaic."

This just gets better and better. First, you probably need to have a few things explained given what you are used to reading. "Galilean Aramaic" (more properly called Jewish Palestinian Aramaic) is not the language Jesus spoke. It didn't exist until 2 centuries after he was dead, and it falls into a period of Aramaic often called "Late Aramaic" (Syriac is also "Late Aramaic", but it uses a different alphabet and belongs to the Eastern, not Western, Late Aramaic dialects).

So what he "presupposes" is that by looking at the sources we have for Galilean Aramaic and how it relates to older "Middle Aramaic" dialects as well earlier "Late Aramaic" he can use such comparisons to identify which traits are (or are not) shared by which dialects and in what ways, much like you might have physical or personality traits you attribute to one side of your family rather than the other. It is no accident that linguists refer to language "families".

This is somewhat related to what experts actually do, only it is a simplistic version and more akin to methods used a century ago than modern methos. But in essence the ways to understand what dialect Jesus spoke have to be determined by evidence such as what dialects are attested (and to what extent), when they date from, grammatical commentaries, differences in scribal practices, translations from Hebrew into Aramaic, and in general track the patterns that exist among the different dialects of different times to determine how they relate.

"Galilean Aramaic" is a dialect. The only way to have a dialect is to have other dialects. The only way to know whether a manuscript or inscription belongs to this or that dialect is to be able to sort out how the different forms of Aramaic in different time periods relate to one another (and to other Semitic languages).

Meanwhile, your guy learned how to operate a camera and claims to have been taught a dialect unknown to the entire world apart from him and two Iranian teachers (who made sure to teach a first grader the "language of Jesus").

with no other qualifying credentials as a translator of Galilean Aramaic

"No other?"
His CV/Resume:

"Education:

MLIS, Rutgers University, 2009
Concentrations: Language, Storage and Retrieval, Human-Computer Interaction.

B.A. Information Technology and Informatics, Rutgers University, 2006
Majors: Information Technology and Informatics, Religion
Concentrations: Human-Computer Interaction, Data-Driven Web Applications, Early Judeo-Christianity, Historical Jesus

Language Skills and Competences:

First language: English.

Advanced knowledge of Biblical Aramaic, Classical Syriac Aramaic, Galilean Aramaic ("Jewish Palestinian Aramaic"), and several Jewish Aramaic dialects.

Proficient in various other Aramaic dialects including Old Aramaic, Classical Mandaic Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic. Also proficient in Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew.

Basic knowledge of Swadaya (Neo-Aramaic), Turoyo (Neo-Aramaic), and Ma'loula (Neo-Aramaic)."
(source)

Notice that instead of nebulous claims to "learning the language of Jesus" in first grade, Caruso is quite specific about his proficiencies at various Semitic dialects and doesn't pretend that he learned a language that has been dead for ~1800 years from Iranian priests.

whose technique is to 'peel back' language

Google Proto-Indo-European. Then Proto-Germanic. Then Proto–Afroasiatic. Sir William Jones, Franz Bopp, Jacob Grimm, etc., begat comparative and historical linguistics by "peeling back" to proto-languages, their work set the foundations to our understanding Aramaic and Hebrew. If that doesn't help you understand "peel back", then google terms like "loan words" "grammaticalization", "borrowing" "lingua franca", "speech communities", etc. until you have an idea on what historical linguistics involves.

I am fairly certain Caruso is way out of his league. However, that's just because reconstructions such as that which he is attempting frequently yield little that can be said for certain and it is extremely complicated. Also, it's been done.

then you will have to include Alexander

I have to include Alexander because you don't know enough about comparative & historical linguistics (or anything else relevant) to know that Caruso means? Can't you just do a little basic research?

who as a native speaker of Aramaic is far more qualified

Great! So translate those English passages I provided for you. They're very short and you're a native English speaker, so what's the problem?

and aware of some of the points you have made re: archaic dialects

No he isn't:

Of course, this was two thousand years ago, the language has evolved and today it is like old English; it sounds very different. I call it Ancient Aramaic.

He calls it ancient Aramaic because he is so utterly clueless that he doesn't realize that ancient Aramaic (Old Aramaic) died out around 600 years before Jesus was born, that Galilean Aramaic postdates Jesus by 200 years, and that it is is a dialect of "Late Aramaic".

It is still used in the liturgy

It's also medieval. Even the earliest liturgical material (which isn't used) dates from half a millennium after Jesus' day.

Nobody speaks this language anymore

True. Nor do they speak the Aramaic of the period before it. Nor do they speak the Aramaic of the period before that, which is the Aramaic of Jesus' time (but doesn't tell us what dialect he spoke).

just as nobody speaks Old English or even Middle English anymore. Nobody speaks Koine Greek, Old Norse, or Old German, and so on. These languages have all evolved.

So both Old English and Middle English have evolved? What did each of them evolve into?

Eashoa (Jesus) spoke in the Galilean dialect of Ancient Aramaic

Despite the fact that it wasn't around while he lived, was mistakenly called that before we realized that that dialect was attested to far outside of Galilee, and it wasn't "ancient Aramaic". It was Late Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.

because that is where he grew up

And as Chancey, among others, has shown, onomastic, epigraphic, and some textual attestation for the dialects of Jesus day show that he couldn't have spoken "Galilean" Aramaic as that dialect began ~200 year later.

In fact, all the disciples were Galilean Jews, and so it is obvious that they would record the sayings of Eashoa (Jesus) in their language.

Only
1) They were likely all illiterate
2) Outside of a few places like Galilee, Jews either spoke Greek and Aramaic or just Greek, and as the earliest Christians (as we learn from both Paul and Acts) preached to gentiles, writing gospels in a language that few even among Jews could understand would have ended Christianity.
3) The Syriac script didn't exist then

So the New Testament was recorded in Ancient Aramaic and later translated into Koine Greek

The NT was recorded in a period of Aramaic 6 centuries before Jesus? Amazing.


And the rest of his garbage is equally pathetically uninformed.

 

[godnotgod]

"No other?"
His CV/Resume:

"Education:

MLIS, Rutgers University, 2009
Concentrations: Language, Storage and Retrieval, Human-Computer Interaction.

B.A. Information Technology and Informatics, Rutgers University, 2006
Majors: Information Technology and Informatics, Religion
Concentrations: Human-Computer Interaction, Data-Driven Web Applications, Early Judeo-Christianity, Historical Jesus

Language Skills and Competences:

First language: English.

Advanced knowledge of Biblical Aramaic, Classical Syriac Aramaic, Galilean Aramaic ("Jewish Palestinian Aramaic"), and several Jewish Aramaic dialects.

Proficient in various other Aramaic dialects including Old Aramaic, Classical Mandaic Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic. Also proficient in Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew.

Basic knowledge of Swadaya (Neo-Aramaic), Turoyo (Neo-Aramaic), and Ma'loula (Neo-Aramaic)."
(source)

'concentrations', 'proficient', and 'advanced knowledge' say nothing as to his formal education in any particular area, nor how he acquired these 'skills'. Most of these are self-proclaimed attributes. I suspect that, not being a native speaker of Aramaic, he could still not have a fluid conversation in Aramaic with Alexander. I'm not knocking Caruso, but I don't think he is sufficiently qualified to label Alexander a 'fraud', and neither are you.

 

[godnotgod]

Great! So translate those English passages I provided for you. They're very short and you're a native English speaker, so what's the problem?

The ridiculous premise upon which you base your request. I'm not one of your stupid dummies you can just knock around at your whim for your egotistic amusement. Now go to your QiGong instructor and get some enlightenment before you use your academia like a bulldozer to push people around you think know less than you as a form of entertainment.

 

[godnotgod]

So what he "presupposes" is that by looking at the sources we have for Galilean Aramaic and how it relates to older "Middle Aramaic" dialects as well earlier "Late Aramaic" he can use such comparisons to identify which traits are (or are not) shared by which dialects and in what ways, much like you might have physical or personality traits you attribute to one side of your family rather than the other. It is no accident that linguists refer to language "families".

This is somewhat related to what experts actually do, only it is a simplistic version and more akin to methods used a century ago than modern methos. But in essence the ways to understand what dialect Jesus spoke have to be determined by evidence such as what dialects are attested (and to what extent), when they date from, grammatical commentaries, differences in scribal practices, translations from Hebrew into Aramaic, and in general track the patterns that exist among the different dialects of different times to determine how they relate.

"Galilean Aramaic" is a dialect. The only way to have a dialect is to have other dialects. The only way to know whether a manuscript or inscription belongs to this or that dialect is to be able to sort out how the different forms of Aramaic in different time periods relate to one another (and to other Semitic languages).

Meanwhile, your guy learned how to operate a camera and claims to have been taught a dialect unknown to the entire world apart from him and two Iranian teachers (who made sure to teach a first grader the "language of Jesus").

Alexander has stated in so many words that he also interpolates Aramaic in a similar manner to Caruso's 'peeling back', and yet you allow Caruso but ban Alexander.

 

[godnotgod]

...Jesus... couldn't have spoken "Galilean" Aramaic as that dialect began ~200 year later.

Oh. Sorta like when the 'city' of 'Nazareth' just suddenly pops up out of the ground and out of the NT fully formed. Ha ha ha.....try 135CE when Galilean Aramaic BECAME prominent.


Aramaic language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oh. Sorta like when the 'city' of 'Nazareth' just suddenly pops up out of the ground and out of the NT fully formed.

Archaeology. That's literally how first-century dwellings (among other things) "popped up out of the ground".

For example, a British team working from 2006-2010 found

"a first-century AD domestic building, perhaps a 'courtyard house', located on a broad terrace cut into the hill-slope of a small hill or ridge along the western side of the former wadi. The local topography allowed its builders to use more rock-cut components for the house than usual, but where this was impossible stone-built walls were employed. Fragments of wall plaster and portable artifacts found inside the structure suggest that the walls of the house were plastered and that it had culturally Jewish occupants, including (given the gender association of weaving in Second Temple Judaism) at least one woman. This is exactly what might be expected of an Early Roman-period Jewish family home from settlement sites excavated in the Lower Galilee and elsewhere in Israel"

Dark, K. (2012). Early roman-period nazareth and the sisters of nazareth convent. The Antiquaries Journal, 92, 37-64.

The other findings in that study alone, while less interesting, still show us a Nazareth around in Jesus' day. These include:

"First-century AD cooking pottery"

"First-century AD refuge tunnel"

"Later first-century AD tomb(s)"

(ibid)

That is not the only evidence of early Nazareth from archaeology. A central issue has been the late start of extensive archaeological excavations and having to wait for analyses of findings (which are ongoing; the author of the study above notes that though their excavations have stopped the analysis of data continues). In fact, in a review of an archaeological survey as recent as 2009 the reviewer notes new evidence the book's author doesn't mention:

"Most notable is the following: an elaborate pre-70 synagogue was uncovered at Migdal (near Wadi Hammam) and the coins found in situ date from c. 100 bce to c. 67 ce ; thus, in need of correction is this: ‘[T]here is no evidence at the site [Midgal] of a monumental synagogue’ (p. 236; pp. 399–404, which are devoted to synagogues, are now dated). Moreover, pre-70 dwellings were discovered in Nazareth, and important discoveries have been appearing at Bethsaida, Tiberias, Khirbet Ḥamam, and Khirbet Kana."


How, I wonder, were people living in a first century Nazareth that didn't exist?

Ha ha ha.....try 135CE when Galilean Aramaic BECAME prominent.

Do you even bother to read your own sources? From the page you linked to:
"Galilean Aramaic, the dialect of Jesus' home region, is only known from a few place names, the influences on Galilean Targumic, some rabbinic literature and a few private letters"

Now, your source mentions in one part of a sentence that we know of some letters. I have not only these letters (copies of the texts, that is), but an extensive background and context as well as dates and contexts for each letter in Lindenberger, J. M., & Richards, K. H. (2003). Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters (No. 14). Brill Academic. Before I waste my time going over any of the ways letters hundreds of years after Jesus are used to get some understanding of the Aramaic of Jesus' day, i'll just asked: are you at all interested as to what the letters your wiki link refers to consist of (dates, dialects, geographical regions, etc., or even how these are used to try to reconstruct the Middle Aramaic of Jesus' day?

If not, then I'll refer you to your own source: "Galilean Aramaic" of Jesus' day exists to us through place names and Aramaic texts dating centuries later.

 

[godnotgod]

Do you even bother to read your own sources? From the page you linked to:
"Galilean Aramaic, the dialect of Jesus' home region, is only known from a few place names, the influences on Galilean Targumic, some rabbinic literature and a few private letters"....

....I'll refer you to your own source: "Galilean Aramaic" of Jesus' day exists to us through place names and Aramaic texts dating centuries later.

Look to the timeline chart on the right of the page:

There is an entry which is labeled:

'135 [CE] Galilean Aramaic becomes prominent'

...with emphasis on 'becomes'.

Aramaic language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[godnotgod]

Archaeology. That's literally how first-century dwellings (among other things) "popped up out of the ground".

For example, a British team working from 2006-2010 found

"a first-century AD domestic building, perhaps a 'courtyard house', located on a broad terrace cut into the hill-slope of a small hill or ridge along the western side of the former wadi. The local topography allowed its builders to use more rock-cut components for the house than usual, but where this was impossible stone-built walls were employed. Fragments of wall plaster and portable artifacts found inside the structure suggest that the walls of the house were plastered and that it had culturally Jewish occupants, including (given the gender association of weaving in Second Temple Judaism) at least one woman. This is exactly what might be expected of an Early Roman-period Jewish family home from settlement sites excavated in the Lower Galilee and elsewhere in Israel"

Dark, K. (2012). Early roman-period nazareth and the sisters of nazareth convent. The Antiquaries Journal, 92, 37-64.

The other findings in that study alone, while less interesting, still show us a Nazareth around in Jesus' day. These include:

"First-century AD cooking pottery"

"First-century AD refuge tunnel"

"Later first-century AD tomb(s)"

(ibid)

That is not the only evidence of early Nazareth from archaeology. A central issue has been the late start of extensive archaeological excavations and having to wait for analyses of findings (which are ongoing; the author of the study above notes that though their excavations have stopped the analysis of data continues). In fact, in a review of an archaeological survey as recent as 2009 the reviewer notes new evidence the book's author doesn't mention:

"Most notable is the following: an elaborate pre-70 synagogue was uncovered at Migdal (near Wadi Hammam) and the coins found in situ date from c. 100 bce to c. 67 ce ; thus, in need of correction is this: ‘[T]here is no evidence at the site [Midgal] of a monumental synagogue’ (p. 236; pp. 399–404, which are devoted to synagogues, are now dated). Moreover, pre-70 dwellings were discovered in Nazareth, and important discoveries have been appearing at Bethsaida, Tiberias, Khirbet Ḥamam, and Khirbet Kana."


How, I wonder, were people living in a first century Nazareth that didn't exist?

They weren't, because there was no 1st Century Nazareth, at least not that we know of. We know of some artifacts dated to the 1st Century, which include a small home, farm implements, a wine press, etc.. but no 'town', 'village', or 'city', not even a 'hamlet'. However, we do have some references to Nazaerene Essenes living in a kind of tent city on the foothills of Mt. Carmel, whose monastery is within some 10 miles of modern day Nazareth, which might be referenced as a hamlet or village called 'Nazareth' after the Nazarene community.

But the archaeology is another story. I was initially referring to the fact that the 'city' of Nazareth suddenly appears in the NT in Matthew for the first time, it never having been mentioned at all from any previous source whatsoever, whether historical, literary, commercial, or scriptural.

 

[gnostic]

Seriously, godnotgod.

Don't you think that if there is the oldest Aramaic manuscript of the New Testament that predated the earliest Greek NT or the Syriac NT, that biblical translators and scholars around the world wouldn't push and shove to get their hand on, as they have done with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi?

The only person being vocal about this so-called Aramaic NT Bible is Victor Alexander...and apparently YOU.

And why is that, godnotgod?

Victor Alexander has been so loud is SUPPOSED discovery, because he has a book he want to sell for $50 to readers, and by making all sort of fraudulent claims about his Aramaic NT is older than the Greek and Syriac texts.

I am neither Christian nor Jew, and yet I have a number of different translations of the bible (including DSS scriptures), as well as some non-canonical ones, gnostic books and one rabbinical book. I have one copy of the Qur'an, but I don't think I will attempt to try Hadith (the reason being that there are many hadith, I seriously don't know where to begin).

Right now, I thinking of purchasing more Hindu scriptures, Buddhist and Taoist literature of which I don't have, and possibly the interesting exploring the Japanese Shinto myths.

I already have the ancient Egyptian Pyramid Text, Coffin Text and the Book of the Dead.

My point is that I am willing to attempt to read new scriptural or mythological literature. I am agnostic, but I am fascinated by ancient storytelling.

One thing for certain, I am not going to buy Alexander's The Aramaic New Testament, because I know by the tone of his webpage that he has been making all sorts of fraudulent claims.

The silliest thing is that you have been defending Alexander's claim of the Aramaic sources. Admirable as that would have been, but you have dismissed or ignored all other experts in the fields that other members have presented, on sometimes the most petty ground.

And all that defensiveness and your vigorous defense of Alexander that makes me wonder if you, yourself, are really Victor Alexander.

It just my idle speculation :areyoucra or suspicion, :tsk: but I am growing more suspicious with every posts you have replied to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They weren't, because there was no 1st Century Nazareth, at least not that we know of.

What, exactly, do you base your rejection on an archaeological study of a first century dwelling and a published peer-reviewed article on Galilean archaeology which specifically mentions dwellings in Nazareth?

We know of some artifacts dated to the 1st Century

Why limit evidence to the 1st century? Nobody is arguing that Nazareth was built for Jesus, so it must have been around before him.

"Recent excavations in the grounds of the Scottish Hospital suggest that Nazareth was a farming settlement in the Roman period. The excavated farm shows considerable human development in terms of watch-towers, terracing, grape presses and a field irrigation system. This was supplied by water flowing in a nearby wadi, which originated in a spring higher up the hill. Presumably this would be typical of other villages in the neighbourhood, all of which were situated on the ridge because of the good soil-cover and the plentiful supply of springs on the summit. The village culture that such an environment created was that of small-scale farming with peasant land-owners and their families the most common type of resident. These settlements represent Jewish colonization of the Galilee from the mid-second century BCE, in the wake of the Hasmonean expansion. In order to ease the population pressures in the south, allotted land was granted to army veterans and others willing to migrate north in the newly (re) captured territories deemed to have been part of the ancestral land. Such settlers remained staunchly Jewish and pro-Hasmonean and never willingly accepted the Herodians or their lifestyle. The Nazareth farm project supports the idea that they were not just mere subsistence farmers, but like all colonizers in the Mediterranean as elsewhere, worked the land intensively, participated in the redistributive system and were able to support a relatively comfortable lifestyle."

The archaeological evidence for a village begins before the first century and continues into it and beyond.

which include a small home, farm implements, a wine press, etc.. but no 'town', 'village', or 'city', not even a 'hamlet'.

Ah. I see. So it wasn't a hamlet, but some isolated farmer who happened to go out, build a few watchtowers, farm in multiple separate areas, wonder over away from his farm quite a ways to build this:

That's from the first century.

Do you know what archaeological evidence exists for villages in Galilee (or more rural villages then)? Did you expect that 2,000 years after repeated wars we'd uncover the 50-80 houses that were the entirety of Nazareth?

What we do is infer from what we find. If, for example, we find just pottery shards and tools, there is no indication that these couldn't have been dropped during some travel. When we find farming areas with a size designed for a village of that time, wine presses, Jewish pottery for designed for purity, watch towers, and more, we can infer that someone didn't wander out into nowhere, build or produce a several things that only make sense if there were at least a village there, and then bury himself in one of the Jewish burial finds (he must have also brought some bodies to fill those finds with bodies).

However, we do have some references to Nazaerene Essenes living in a kind of tent city on the foothills of Mt. Carmel

Where do we find this? I would just like to hear you repeat your source again after saying that our archaeological evidence for Nazareth (farms, watchtowers, Jewish burial remains, a wine press, and dwellings from before the first century beyond Jesus' day) isn't enough, these "references".

I was initially referring to the fact that the 'city' of Nazareth suddenly appears in the NT in Matthew for the first time

,
Mark. Mark was written first.

it never having been mentioned at all from any previous source whatsoever

And these include...? Do you know how many literary sources we have written in the first century (other than the NT and early Christian literature)? Those of Josephus & Philo. Philo lived in Alexandria, and Josephus has that awful habit of referring vaguely to "the expanse of Galilee" or "whole of Galilee" when he doesn't feel particular locations to be important.

In other words, why would we expect it to ever be mentioned? Do you know what evidence exists for rural villages in Galilee?

whether historical, literary, commercial, or scriptural.

Actually just last month a first-century billboard was found that read "Welcome to Galilee, Home of the Historical Jesus". I am hoping by commercial you meant "related to commerce". We have first century inscription from Nazareth prohibiting grave-robbing and we have Christian literature. I'd launch in ancient historiography here but I have this inkling it would be a waste of time. However, if you would like to learn a bit about what type of literature the gospels are and what type of literature existed in general, I'm more than happy to go into that.

 

[godnotgod]

Seriously, godnotgod.

Don't you think that if there is the oldest Aramaic manuscript of the New Testament that predated the earliest Greek NT or the Syriac NT, that biblical translators and scholars around the world wouldn't push and shove to get their hand on, as they have done with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi?

The only person being vocal about this so-called Aramaic NT Bible is Victor Alexander...and apparently YOU.

And why is that, godnotgod?

Victor Alexander has been so loud is SUPPOSED discovery, because he has a book he want to sell for $50 to readers, and by making all sort of fraudulent claims about his Aramaic NT is older than the Greek and Syriac texts.

I am neither Christian nor Jew, and yet I have a number of different translations of the bible (including DSS scriptures), as well as some non-canonical ones, gnostic books and one rabbinical book. I have one copy of the Qur'an, but I don't think I will attempt to try Hadith (the reason being that there are many hadith, I seriously don't know where to begin).

Right now, I thinking of purchasing more Hindu scriptures, Buddhist and Taoist literature of which I don't have, and possibly the interesting exploring the Japanese Shinto myths.

I already have the ancient Egyptian Pyramid Text, Coffin Text and the Book of the Dead.

My point is that I am willing to attempt to read new scriptural or mythological literature. I am agnostic, but I am fascinated by ancient storytelling.

One thing for certain, I am not going to buy Alexander's The Aramaic New Testament, because I know by the tone of his webpage that he has been making all sorts of fraudulent claims.

The silliest thing is that you have been defending Alexander's claim of the Aramaic sources. Admirable as that would have been, but you have dismissed or ignored all other experts in the fields that other members have presented, on sometimes the most petty ground.

And all that defensiveness and your vigorous defense of Alexander that makes me wonder if you, yourself, are really Victor Alexander.

It just my idle speculation :areyoucra or suspicion, :tsk: but I am growing more suspicious with every posts you have replied to.

I'm advocating Pe****ta primacy, not Alexander.

If the NT was first written in Greek, how do you explain the poetic evidence found throughout the Pe****ta, with words that make sense and/or rhyme where the equivalent passage in Greek does not?

 

[godnotgod]

What, exactly, do you base your rejection on an archaeological study of a first century dwelling and a published peer-reviewed article on Galilean archaeology which specifically mentions dwellings in Nazareth?




Why limit evidence to the 1st century? Nobody is arguing that Nazareth was built for Jesus, so it must have been around before him.

"Recent excavations in the grounds of the Scottish Hospital suggest that Nazareth was a farming settlement in the Roman period. The excavated farm shows considerable human development in terms of watch-towers, terracing, grape presses and a field irrigation system. This was supplied by water flowing in a nearby wadi, which originated in a spring higher up the hill. Presumably this would be typical of other villages in the neighbourhood, all of which were situated on the ridge because of the good soil-cover and the plentiful supply of springs on the summit. The village culture that such an environment created was that of small-scale farming with peasant land-owners and their families the most common type of resident. These settlements represent Jewish colonization of the Galilee from the mid-second century BCE, in the wake of the Hasmonean expansion. In order to ease the population pressures in the south, allotted land was granted to army veterans and others willing to migrate north in the newly (re) captured territories deemed to have been part of the ancestral land. Such settlers remained staunchly Jewish and pro-Hasmonean and never willingly accepted the Herodians or their lifestyle. The Nazareth farm project supports the idea that they were not just mere subsistence farmers, but like all colonizers in the Mediterranean as elsewhere, worked the land intensively, participated in the redistributive system and were able to support a relatively comfortable lifestyle."

The archaeological evidence for a village begins before the first century and continues into it and beyond.



Ah. I see. So it wasn't a hamlet, but some isolated farmer who happened to go out, build a few watchtowers, farm in multiple separate areas, wonder over away from his farm quite a ways to build this:

That's from the first century.

Do you know what archaeological evidence exists for villages in Galilee (or more rural villages then)? Did you expect that 2,000 years after repeated wars we'd uncover the 50-80 houses that were the entirety of Nazareth?

What we do is infer from what we find. If, for example, we find just pottery shards and tools, there is no indication that these couldn't have been dropped during some travel. When we find farming areas with a size designed for a village of that time, wine presses, Jewish pottery for designed for purity, watch towers, and more, we can infer that someone didn't wander out into nowhere, build or produce a several things that only make sense if there were at least a village there, and then bury himself in one of the Jewish burial finds (he must have also brought some bodies to fill those finds with bodies).




Where do we find this? I would just like to hear you repeat your source again after saying that our archaeological evidence for Nazareth (farms, watchtowers, Jewish burial remains, a wine press, and dwellings from before the first century beyond Jesus' day) isn't enough, these "references".

,
Mark. Mark was written first.


And these include...? Do you know how many literary sources we have written in the first century (other than the NT and early Christian literature)? Those of Josephus & Philo. Philo lived in Alexandria, and Josephus has that awful habit of referring vaguely to "the expanse of Galilee" or "whole of Galilee" when he doesn't feel particular locations to be important.

In other words, why would we expect it to ever be mentioned? Do you know what evidence exists for rural villages in Galilee?



Actually just last month a first-century billboard was found that read "Welcome to Galilee, Home of the Historical Jesus". I am hoping by commercial you meant "related to commerce". We have first century inscription from Nazareth prohibiting grave-robbing and we have Christian literature. I'd launch in ancient historiography here but I have this inkling it would be a waste of time. However, if you would like to learn a bit about what type of literature the gospels are and what type of literature existed in general, I'm more than happy to go into that.

Except that there is no village there. There is a farming community. I'll believe you when there is hard evidence of a town center with a structured, functioning government and associated buildings, along with a central marketplace and perhaps a synagogue.

No further comment; off-topic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Except that there is no village there.

There was. Once again, I have provided you with sources and asked for yours. You continue to refuse to say what your are basing your understanding of the state of archaeological scholarship on pre-70CE Nazareth.

There is a farming community.

That's a village. We're hitting another disconnect here and before I spend post after post assuming you know things you don't, I'll just asked: do you know anything about any cultural, social, economic, urban, rural, architectural, technological, or any other aspects/dynamics of any part (geographic or temporal) of the Roman Empire? Can you give me a basis to work with?

I'll believe you when there is hard evidence of a town center

You mean you will believe me when there is hard evidence of something that didn't exist at all for many centuries after Jesus? Again, I really need a baseline here as you haven't indicated you are familiar with anything relevant and while I'm sure you do, I need to know what these things are in order to communicate with you.

with a structured, functioning government and associated buildings, along with a central marketplace and perhaps a synagogue.

That's a city. In fact, that's a very large city (at that time). Also, synagogues were not buildings most of the time, but people's houses.

Leṿin, L. I. (2005). The ancient synagogue: the first thousand years. (2nd Ed.) Yale University Press.

Runesson, A., Binder, D. D., & Olsson, B. (Eds.). (2008). The ancient synagogue from its origins to 200 CE: a source book (Vol. 72 of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity). Brill.

No further comment; off-topic.

It's actually vital. The socio-cultural nature of Galilee is essential for understanding the ways in which the gospels came to be written in Greek.

 

[godnotgod]

That's a city. In fact, that's a very large city (at that time). Also, synagogues were not buildings most of the time, but people's houses.

Well, duh! The NT refers to a 1st Century Nazareth as the 'city' and the 'town' of Nazareth. The Greek word being 'polis', but we've been through all this on the original thread about Nazareth and James Randi's video.

There is no 1st century 'town' or 'city' of Nazareth that we know of!