47 replies

  1. Paul

    Salvation in the name YHWH, Jesus or Allah?

    Given that many Muslims assert that the origin of the word Allah can only be Jamid not derived, why do you assert that the word Allah is derived (Mushtaq) from the root word ilah meaning god, contracted (eluding the hamza in ilah to produce lah) and compounded with Al (the) to produce the word Allah.
    Allah is thus formulated in the formula
    Al + (ilah – i = lah) in the form of Al + lah = Allah literal translation is the (Al) god (ilah) the god?

    Like

    • what has this got to do with the post?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Paul
        This post is as good as any unless you can point at a better post to discuss this question to further the discussion we had at the Park last Sunday with James being present.

        However, this post suggests that Salvation is in the name Jesus, the Jews would argue that Salvation is in the name YHWH and Muslims should be able to assert that it is in the name Allah.

        I am more interested in your answer to my question please reply here or direct me else where to continue the discussion.

        Like

      • @ Baz Al

        Translation:

        “I made a claim without knowledge and am upset at looking stupid so I have to lash out to save the last shreds of my ego.”

        Got it man you don’t gotta tell me twice.

        Like

    • @ Baz Al

      First off as noted irrelevant to the topic.

      Next, there is no agreed-upon meaning to the name of Allah so that’s just plain wrong.

      There are differences of, is it conjoined (if so what word because another popular position is “Aliha”), an Arabic word (I personally take the position that it’s a loan word from Ugaritic from a long time ago). So please, avoid speaking without studying a matter fully.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. In Genesis 22:11–15 Jesus appears to Abraham according to standard Christian theology. I am sure you have come across this argument from Christians.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. What’s Muhammad excuse? He heard of Isa, not Jesus. Lol

    Like

    • @ Denver

      Jesus(as) never heard the name “Jesus” lol so I guess he’s doomed as well. Let’s check his name in Eastern Syriac (i.e. Aramaic) (1:00)

      So we’ll keep using the man’s name(emphasis on man) and you do…whatever disbelievers who don’t actually follow his religion do.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isho

      Oh for giggle here’s God as well:
      https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h426

      Liked by 1 person

      • I am not sure Jesus would often have occasion to hear his name pronounced in Syriac (i.e., eastern Aramaic). Rather, on an everyday basis a form of Hebrew or Palestinian, i.e. western Aramaic and perhaps some Greek would more likely have been used, since these languages were in use judging from the written sources around that time (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bar Kokhva letters, epigraphic materials, etc.).

        If Syriac Isho is the equivalent of Hebrew or Aramaic Yehoshua or Yeshua it is more likely that the latter were used in the time and place of Jesus.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Marc C.

        Hebrew was no longer widely spoken during Jesus’s(as) time except for religious ceremony reading the Torah. Jesus(as) clearly speaks Syriac because:

        1. it was the predominant language of his era
        2. The NT authors writing in Koine Greek have to translate words from there to make sense for the reader for example:

        “About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” ((Matt 27:46)
        https://biblehub.com/matthew/27-46.htm

        To the best of my knowledge (and again I could be wrong as I haven’t read them in a while) none of the NT authors ever translate Hebrew phrases he’s reported to have said.

        3. Yeshua, Yashua etc are modern things with no basis even in early Christendom tradition:

        “Tradition means what has been handed down. And the truth is that there is no tradition — no writings, no hymns, no inscriptions, no traditional teaching or custom — of our Lord being addressed as Yeshua, passed down by the earliest Christians or by anyone else at all, until the beginnings of the “Messianic” movement in the nineteenth century.

        Proponents argue that the name Yeshua is what the Apostles themselves would have called the Lord; and that might very well be true. But they left us no record, no tradition of it. Historians believe that Jesus and the Apostles probably spoke Aramaic as their primary language — not Hebrew. Yeshua is a modern reconstruction, based not on Aramaic but on Hebrew pronunciation.*

        Jews wrote Aramaic with the Hebrew script, but pronounced it differently than the biblical Hebrew language. Our transliteration of Hebrew is based on the rabbinical pronunciation of the biblical texts. The original Hebrew texts had no vowels; the system of vowels and pronunciations we have of ancient Hebrew today was passed down (and in some cases made up, or at least formalized) by rabbis. So a rabbi reading ישוע in a biblical text would pronounce it completely differently than a first-century Jew on the street speaking Aramaic, reading the same characters. Syriac Christians (see below), whose liturgical language is essentially Aramaic as it would have been spoken in the first century, pronounce these same characters, ישוע, not as “Yeshua” but as “Isho.”

        On top of this, there is the matter that Hebrew and other Semitic languages can only be transliterated incompletely into English, which lacks both the phonemes and the graphemes to fully express those languages’ sounds and meanings. Even presuming the rabbinic tradition of pronunciation — Yeshua, like any other rendering, is at best an approximation. Rather than adhering to the “true” name of the Lord, proponents of this are just as guilty of “translating” His name into their own language as the early Greek Christians were in calling Him Jesus.

        There are in fact Christians who have been speaking Aramaic for the past two thousand years, since the time of the Apostles, who have passed down the Christian faith in what can be called its native language: the Syriac Christians, whose liturgical language is essentially Aramaic as Jesus would have spoken it — but they pronounce the Lord’s name not “Yeshua,” but “Isho.” Yeshua was passed down by nobody at all, but invented from imagined traditions in modern times.

        http://lonelypilgrim.com/2014/11/19/saying-jesuss-name-wrong-a-fallacy-of-hebrew-roots/

        The only reason they want to make it “Yeshua” is for religious propaganda that his name “means salvation”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • 1. I am not sure what you mean by “it was the dominant language of his era”? The written records of Palestine, 2 cent. b.c.e. – 2 cent. c.e., reveal predominantly “Palestinian” Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. From around the time of Jesus there is only a single inscription with two words written in Syriac, the so called Helena of Adiabene sarcophagus. And even this caused the “scribe” some difficulties. What is the evidence that Syriac was spoken in Jesus’ time and place?

        2. The fact is that Matthew’s transliteration in 27:46 is in Palestinian Aramaic. The Peshitta gives it in good old Syriac as “Eyl, Eyl lemana sabaktani”, with the use of the Syriac interrogative particle lemana (why) as opposed to the Palestinian Aramaic lama in Matthew. Thus, according to this verse in Matthew Jesus did not speak the Syriac dialect. So again, I would ask for the evidence that Jesus spoke Syriac or at least that Syriac was spoken in his time and place, when the evidence suggests that Syriac was not used in his time and environment.

        3. Specifically on the name Jesus. Many Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions and documents have been found with the forms Yehoshua, Yeshua and Yoshua and more. Biblical Hebrew has both Yehoshua and Yeshua. Both Syriac ܥܘܫܝ and Hebrew ישוע Y-Sh-W-A’ are spelt exactly the same way. We cannot be sure as to the exact pronunciation. However, when vowel points were eventually added, in Hebrew it was vocalized as Yeshua and Syriac diverged into an eastern and western branch vocalized Eesho and Yeesho respectively. I should like to add that specifically Yeshua is employed both in Hebrew and Aramaic contexts. For the Aramaic context in the Hebrew Bible see Ezra 5:2 and for the inscriptions see for example the recently published ossuary of ‘Miriam Daughter of Yeshua Son of Caiaphas, Priests of Macaziah from Beth Imri’. It is, however, not so clear that the name Yeshua is specifically Aramaic or an Aramaic pronunciation and Hebrew should probably be the default an option. Thus, it is not so clear there originally was such an Aramaic name. So in this regard I don’t necessarily disagree with the link you sent (is it just me or is this an anonymous source? Could also not see where and as what exactly he/she does). However all this may be, there is little evidence to suggest we should prefer a Syriac vocalisation over a Hebrew or Palestinian Aramaic, considering Syriac was virtually unknown in Palestine around the time of Jesus and it is uncertain the name in these four consonants is in any form of Aramaic – Syriac or otherwise – to begin with.

        4. As it is of a highly specialized nature I don’t want to go to deep into this (but we can get into that too if you want) but most scholars do believe Hebrew was (also) spoken around the time of Jesus, and in any case it was used for much more widely than “religious ceremony reading the Torah”. There are statements in the Talmud implying that, the evidence of the Mishna, the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and we have Hebrew contracts, Hebrew letters such as the 4QMMT and Bar Kokhva and the Copper scroll. Already in 1970. James Barr, noted (p. 19) that:
        “In general, then, Semitists, and specialists who work on Mishnaic Hebrew, appear today to be agreed, in spite of certain modifications, with the opinion of Segal that this dialect was an actual spoken language”.

        https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2973&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

        In 2012 S. Fassberg noted that:

        “Kutscher ‘s 1959 book on the language and linguistic background of the Great Isaiah Scroll convinced most readers that deviations in the language of lQIsaA from the MT reflected vernacular Hebrew and Aramaic in Palestine around the time of Jesus. The view of the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls as essentially literary but betraying colloquial features is still maintained by most Hebraists” (“Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak?”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2012), p. 271).

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Marc C

        1. I meant as Aramaic is the dominant language of his era, pretty obvious. Also, Syriac is Aramaic

        “Aramaic was the language of the Syrian states like Damascus”

        https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2973&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

        “the language of ancient Syria, a western dialect of Aramaic in which many important early Christian texts are preserved, and which is still used by Syrian Christians as a liturgical language.”

        “Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (abbreviated JPA) was a Western Aramaic language spoken by the Jews during the Classic Era in Judea and the Levant”

        Lol, your literally arguing about a small dialect shift. It’s the equivalent of me going:

        “Yeah people in the appalachian midland speak a different language then people in North midland.”

        https://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/dialectsofenglish.html

        2. Again equivalent of “Soda” and “Pop” doesn’t mean we can’t understand someone using a different dialect of English

        3. Hebrew was D.E.A.D. (along with Aramaic) the only reason the Jews can even speak it now is because of us.

        Simply pop open Hebrew lexicons (even for the Bible) and they will commonly talk about what the word means using Arabic. This is just more proof that these teachings weren’t meant forever as you all can’t even speak the language.

        4.Never argued Greek was not used but he wasn’t speaking it to his people.

        “None of these, however, maintains that Greek was the main language used by Jesus in his teaching; their purpose is rather to deny that Greek can be entirely excluded. We shall therefore leave Greek at this point; and of Latin we shall say nothing at all. Though it certainly was known in Palestine, there has been no serious claim that it was used by Jesus. We come therefore to the opinion that has now long been dominant and especially so since the work of Dalman namely that the major indigenous language of Palestinian Jews in Jesus’ ime was Aramaic and that Aramaic was also the language used by Jesus himself in his teaching.

        Regarding the claim of Hebrews popularity this is modern scholars trying to save embarrassment:

        “According to the Aramaic theory, at least in the more traditional forms of it, before the time of Jesus Hebrew had already ceased to be the general spoken language of Palestinian Jews. Their language was Aramaic, and that was the language used by Jesus in his teaching. The Hebrew of the Mishnah was of course in existence at this time, but it was not a real spoken language; rather, it was an artificial scholarly lingo, used only by Rabbis in their discussions. The Hebrew Bible itself was by this time not understood by the common people, and for this reason its reading was accompanied by an Aramaic translation or Targum, which people could actually understand. In Greek works, like the New Testament or Josephus, when the term hebraisti is used, it commonly does not mean ” in Hebrew ” as we today understand that phrase ; rather, it means ” in the language (other than Greek) which Jews speak “, or “in the indigenous and non-Greek language of the Jews “, i.e. (according to the view under description) in most cases in Aramaic. The New English Bible commonly renders ” in the language of the Jews “.

        Pausing here. What I said here is the most dominant scholarly position now adding to what you said (emphasis mine):

        “The Aramaic theory of Jesus’ language has been very widely held among New Testament scholars, and indeed has come to be common opinion among the educated laity. In the last one or two decades, however, it has come to be questioned by a number of scholars, some of them not primarily (or not at all) New Testament scholars, who have tried to revive the opinion that
        Jesus spoke Hebrew. It is not unfair to say that the existence of this contrary school of thought HAS NOT YET RECEIVED WIDE PUBLICITY.”

        https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2973&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

        So yeah, let’s not make this sound like we’re having some great difference of opinion here. Again common sense, if these guys were speaking Hebrew on the regular they wouldn’t need targums to begin with. Basically, the situation is like how Muslims in the West can speak limited Arabic (Assalamualaikum, SubhanAllah, Hamdulaih, Sallah lahu alahi wa salam, certain chapters of the Quran, etc.) that DOESN’T mean they speak Arabic in everyday conversation.

        5. Even for argument’s sake let’s say he was doing all 3 EVEN then NO scholar on planet Earth says Aramaic (aka Syriac) was not the most common among Jews and his teachings there just trying to strengthen Hebrew and Greek so Isho is still MUCH closer than Yeshua any day of the week in getting his name’s pronunciation.

        Like

      • To cut a long story short. There is evidence that Palestinian Aramaic and Hebrew was spoken and written in the time and place of Jesus. The same cannot be said of Syriac. Specifically on the question of how the four consonants are to be pronounced you have not provided evidence why we should prefer what eventually became the Syriac vocalisation of Eesho or Yeesho over what eventually became Hebrew or Aramaic forms including Yeshua.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Marc C.

        Long story short, Marc can’t tell the difference between dialects and thinks this means their two different languages and has to rely on a minority position to defend the embarrassing fact that he doesn’t know how to read his sacred text.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I read both Hebrew (ancient and some modern) and Palestinian Aramaic and study Syriac, but I’m not claiming it’s super sharp. So I have firsthand knowledge. I did not rely on a minority position. Even if the position did not receive wide publicity. Most specialists as stated by Barr and Fassberg today accept that Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic was written and spoken around the time and place of Jesus. You need not ridicule me. Providing evidence to back up the claim you made is sufficient.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Marc C.

        To begin its not an insult to state you all embarrassingly can’t read your text in it’s dead as a door knob language.

        Moving on, if you read it we wouldn’t be having this discussion as you for some odd reason think dialect= new language.

        Furthermore, as stated it is the minority position, again if everybody speaks it why do targum exist then, Marc? Why do ALL the NT authors use the LXX , Marc? Why is no Hebrew translated in meaning for the Greek converts, Marc?

        Liked by 1 person

      • It does not matter how they pronounce Jesus’ name today; the Syriac Christians still believe that faith in His death / atonement and resurrection and His person (one divine person / Lord / Deity) is what saves;
        therefore “Yahweh is salvation” = Jesus

        Like

      • 1.It is not about thinking that a dialect = new language”. It is about clear and non-confusing terminology. Saying Syriac was spoken in Jesus’ time and place is like saying Quraysh was spoken in Yemen in the 7-8th century. More specifically, you claimed that what eventually was vocalized in Syriac better preserved Jesus’ original name rather than the eventual Palestinian Aramaic or Hebrew vocalizations. I simply asked you to provide evidence for this claim.

        2.The linguistic milieu was complex and not everybody everywhere in the country did necessarily know or speak Hebrew, though on the evidence of e.g., Mishnaic Hebrew, the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bar Kokhva documents etc., it is generally agreed upon that Hebrew was still a spoken vernacular. Fassberg’s article discusses various sources and types of evidence indicating knowledge of spoken Hebrew was unevenly distributed in terms of religion, social class and geography. He cites a table on the distribution of spoken Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in descending order of frequency with Jews/non-Jews, social class and geographical location (p. 276-77). So while Aramaic clearly was spoken and may have overwhelmed Hebrew in the prevailing linguistic milieu, as he says, it did not mean Hebrew disappeared as a vernacular or was not otherwise used even if not everybody everywhere in Palestine had proficiency. Thus, the prevailing view among the specialists, as quoted by Barr and Fassberg today (see also in particular pp. 260-70 and footnote 31), is still that Hebrew was also – along with Aramaic and Greek – spoken around the time of Jesus. However, if you can show me that the prevailing view or at least a significant number of specialist scholars consider that the evidence favours Syriac Eesho or Yeesho as best reflecting Jesus’ original name I would certainly be looking seriously at that. So please provide evidence for your claim.

        3. This is a question of historical linguistics. I told you long time ago I am not religious and that I am not defending Christianity or other beliefs. I have no axe to grind on NT quoting the LXX, or copyists adjusting their text to fit the LXX rather rather than the MT or whatever else might be the case. I am not sure what you mean by “Why is no Hebrew translated in meaning for the Greek converts, Marc?” But again, let’s just say the majority view of scholars are wrong and Hebrew was not spoken, you still would need haven’t provided evidence why the eventual Syriac pronounciation, as per your claim, is to be preferred over the Palestinian Aramaic forms.

        Another helpful overview of Hebrew in Jesus’ tine
        http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ote/v24n1/09.pdf

        Like

      • Or more precisely about early Hebrew, not so much about Jesus.

        Like

      • @ Marc C.

        I assume you are saying Qurayshi dialect in Yemen and yes they would still understand each other CLEARLY and be dumb close sounding to one another. Also this example doesn’t even work it would be more equivalent to say the Qurayshi and Thaqafi dialect as they are in the general area of one another (Mecca and Taif on the map)
        https://www.amazon.com/Gifts-Delight-Laminated-20×20-Poster/dp/B075824C3Z

        You don’t think these people don’t know how to pronounce one another’s name? To further demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about:

        “Early Syriac Christianity has always been a fascinating subject of both scholarly and non-schorlarly research due to its which were written in an Aramaic dialect CLOSELY RELATED TO PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC OF JESUS’S TIME…”

        https://www.jstor.org/stable/1583731?seq=1

        I KNOW for a fact you do not speak a Semitic language as you sound insane right now. Literally typing in Syriac to Google will pop up Aramaic.

        Next, you have no vocalizations from Hebrew or Palestinian Aramaic as both languages are once again D.E.A.D. dead! YOU are the ones guessing on a pronunciation which is why you all STILL can’t pronounce basic things like YHWH, YHVH etc. The closest still kinda spoken relative is Syriac and that is what you would cross-reference back. “Palestinian Aramaic” and “Biblical Hebrew” are basically now made up fantasy languages instead of saying “uhhhhhhh….”

        2. Mishnaic Hebrew is different from biblical Hebrew (further proving my point about it being dead)
        “Hebrew, however, continued to be used how extensively, we shall shortly have to consider and the great corpus of Jewish legal discussion, coming from the first two centuries A.D. and crystallized about 200 as the Mishnah, is in Hebrew. This Mishnaic Hebrew differs in a number of ways from biblical Hebrew. By and after 200 the rabbinical discussions themselves come to be increasingly in Aramaic.”

        Spoken vernacular does not mean one understands it fluently. Again, just look at the Muslims interact on this site right now we use Arabic religious terminology all the time that doesn’t mean we can hold a conversation.

        I’ll ask it once again as you dance around the questions if everyone was having a gay ol time speaking Hebrew why do you have Targums, Marc? Why do the NT authors only quote the LXX, Marc? Why are only Aramac words translated in the NT and not Hebrew ones, Marc? And so that I’m not being repetive I’ll add a new one, Why is the Peshitta (translation of the NT in 2nd century CE) in SYRIAC, Marc? Kinda weird no widespread Hebrew translations of the New Testament were made at this time seeing as everyone in the Middle East and the Mediterranean was walking around speaking it huh? I wonder why? 🤔🤔🤔

        Like

      • @ Marc C

        Oh yeah forgot my last question:

        Who gets more precedence? A 19th century attempted reconstruction (obviously influenced by propaganda) of a dead language or people of the faith who speak the closest living relatives’ pronunciation. Hmmmmm which to choose…

        Like

      • Sorry for the late reply, been busy…

        Adding to and extending upon the forms mentioned above: in the epigraphic material from Palestine around the time of Jesus we find various forms of the name. For example, in the Damasucs Covenant, mostly dated to the first century bce. and in any case no later than 70 c.e., we find a very instructive example. In column 5, line 4 it reads: “…since the death of Eleazar and Joshua. And Joshua and the elders…”. The first Joshua is spelt with a heh and a vaw in 2nd and 3rd position יהושע indicating the scribe clearly thought this part was to be pronounced yeho or the like. The second Joshua is spelt יושוע with two vaws in 2nd and 4th position giving a pronunciation Yoshua’ or the like but these forms would in any case differ from Syriac Isho. The second vaw is supralinear perhaps indicating a correction, see e.g., the edition of Magen Broshi, “The Damascus Document Reconsidered”, Jerusalem 1992, pp. 18-19. Both of these forms, are also found in later inscriptions from the Galilee (Beth Shearim no. 23 and no. 24, N. Avigad: “Beth She’Arim Catacombs 12-23, VOL III”, 1971, pp. 249-50. Cf. H. Lapin, “Epigraphical Rabbis: A Reconsideration”, “The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 101, No. 3 (Summer 2011), pp. 311-346;) as well as in the below lexicon under the name.
        In a bilingual Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic ossuary found in Jerusalem, published in Tal Ilan’s “Lexicon of Jewish names in late antiquity. Part I, Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE”, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 132 no. 127, dated between the first century, b.c.e. and first century c. e. the name is splled ישועה with a final heh indicating the “scribe” thought this name was to be pronounced Yeshuah or similar. The Greek in the ossuary similarly ends with an alpha following the ypsilon resulting in Iesoua.

        It is thus not so clear why a Syriac pronunciation is to be preferred over the epigraphic evidence of ancient Palestine from the time of Jesus. Could you please, provide the scholarly references that discus the linguistics and argue that the Syriac Isho is to be preferred? I will be happy to look further into it.

        To some of your points:

        If Aramaic was spoken by most and only a smaller group understood or spoke Hebrew there would presumably be a market for Aramaic translations. However, Aramaic versions were not necessarily a big thing in Palestine around the time of Jesus. There is Targum Onkelos of the Pentateuch usually dated to the 2nd-3rd century, but known only from later manuscripts (I am not disputing the dating btw). For the biblical books at Qumran, usually dated no later than 70 c.e., there are fragments of Aramaic versions of Job and Leviticus and that’s about it. The so-called peshers or interpretations on biblical books such as Pesher Nahum and Habakkuk are all written in Hebrew and the exegesis does not betray it was done on an Aramaic version. Judging from this and other such Hebrew evidence: if Qumran is representative only of a certain group at least this group used Hebrew. If Qumran is generally representative of ancient Palestine around the time of Jesus it indicates that Hebrew was spoken. While I am not denying Aramaic may have been widespread, contemporary spoken Hebrew was also used. Even the eminent Prof. J. A. Emerton, who had reservations about Hebrew, had to conclude some 50 years ago that it was likely that Hebrew was used as a vernacular in Palestine in the time of Jesus and that a strong case had been made for some Hebrew in the NT, such “Ephphatha!” (which means “Be opened!”)” in Mark 7:34, rendered “etpath” in the Peshitta (cf. Abba, “father” and he discusses other points as well), see “The Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the First Century AD and the Language of Jesus”, “The Journal of Theological Studies”, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 1 (April 1973), pp. 1-23. Of course that doesn’t necessarily change that Aramaic may have overwhelmed Hebrew.

        The Peshitta was translated into Syriac for the benefit of the community that did not understand Hebrew and Greek. But that was far removed from ancient Palestine. I am not sure why the analogy of Taif would be better. I was basing myself on “The consensus is that it [i.e., the Peshitta] was created between 150-250 CE, in the city of Edessa in modern Mesopotamia.” (Eric Tully, The Translation and Translator of the Peshitta of Hosea, 2015. Page 26). Hence my analogy with Quraysh spoken in Yemen. As the Syriac church spread, Syriac diverged into east and west Syriac dialects, including into Palestine, and is sometimes referred to as Christian Palestinian Aramaic, first attested in the region from about the 5th century.

        I never said Hebrew was spoken all over the middle east. I only stated what is the majority view among scholars (cited in an earlier post), namely that in Jesus’ time, part of the population in ancient Palestine spoke Hebrew (along with Aramaic and Greek). Outside of Palestine the local languages would be in use and only the most learned Jews (and Christians?) knew any kind of Hebrew, would have had access and ability to read manuscripts, to write anything of any length and so forth.

        Finally, I think I answered you on the LXX citations in the NT (btw paraphrased from the book on the LXX by Jobes and Silva). If you feel this is not adequate in the context of this discussion, please feel free to expand on this issue. But please do respond to my question, as I have now stated it a few times without receiving an answer from you.

        Like

      • @ Marc

        Idk what fantasy land you live on but let’s come back down to Earth:

        First off you do NOT have the majority view , you have the MINORITY position:

        “The Aramaic theory of Jesus’ language has been very widely held among New Testament scholars, and indeed has come to be common opinion among the educated laity. In the last one or two decades, however, it has come to be questioned by a number of scholars, some of them not primarily (or not at all) New Testament scholars, who have tried to revive the opinion that
        Jesus spoke Hebrew. It is not unfair to say that the existence of this contrary school of thought HAS NOT YET RECEIVED WIDE PUBLICITY.”

        https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2973&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

        Next, you haven’t said a thing about the NT authors quoting the LXX all you said was:

        “I have no axe to grind on NT quoting the LXX, or copyists adjusting their text to fit the LXX rather rather than the MT or whatever else might be the case…”

        Moving on, it’s preferred due to basic common sense that the oldest living dialect of the language pronounces it one-way as opposed to a 19th-century reconstruction by a bunch of nonspeakers based on propaganda. You have been given plenty of scholarly resources to refer back to. You attempted to make “Syriac” and “Palestinian Aramaic” seem like two different things and are still arguing it even after being proven wrong.

        As for your other point once again I have not denied the didn’t speak SOME Hebrew but that doesn’t make it widespread. Watch this:

        “Asalamualakum wa rahma tu lahi wa barakatu Ya QB, Mr. Heathcliff, Paul Williams, Abdullah 1234, Patrobin, Shaad and Vaqas Rahman. May we all meet in Jannatul Firdos”

        Does that mean Arabic is a strongly spoken language on this blog? No. The same thing is going on in Palestine again because none of your scholars actually speaks Semitic language is why this minority is arguing it.

        Moving on, you’ve missed my point entirely regarding the Peshitta so I’ll simplify it. If Hebrew was widely spoken why was no translation of the NT done? Surely all the “converts” from Judaism that the NT claims would want these text… and surely the NT authors would quote from other than the LXX, right? Right?

        Again let’s break this down which to choose:

        1. The oldest living dialect of the language in question
        2. Attempted reconstruction almost 2,000 years later by a bunch of non-Semitic speakers of a dead language?

        Liked by 2 people

      • 1. You did not respond to my question, nor did you deal with the primary sources I quoted. Please deal with the primary sources from the time and place of Jesus showing different pronunciation. We can’t be sure to the exact pronunciation, but it differs somewhat from Syriac The first step is to look at the primary evidence. Not the dichotomy you presented.

        2. To my knowledge no translation of the NT to any language in Palestine has survived. To my knowledge there is little evidence of NT in Palestine other than the Greek before the fifth century. If you have any, please cite it. If there were many Jewish converts we would expect an Aramaic translation or knowledge of it in the sources. WE don’t find that.

        3. Why should “publicity” or what the public thinks or have heard count? I cited the majority opinion as stated in 2012 by S. Fassberg so I’ll restate it here:

        “Kutscher ‘s 1959 book on the language and linguistic background of the Great Isaiah Scroll convinced most readers that deviations in the language of lQIsaA from the MT reflected vernacular Hebrew and Aramaic in Palestine around the time of Jesus. The view of the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls as essentially literary but betraying colloquial features is still maintained by most Hebraists” (“Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak?”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2012), p. 271).

        If you can show consensus has shifted since then, that would be a valid point.

        4. I answered that one reason the LXX – not the only one – according Jobes & Silva is scribes in some cases adjusted the quotes from MT to fit the LXX wording. But for whatever reason fact is that most quotes follow the LXX not a Hebrew or Aramaic parent text. So please spell out why you consider this to be so and of what significance you believe that is.

        Like

      • I wrote “To my knowledge no translation of the NT to any language in Palestine has survived”. That is, made in or for the Palestinian community for many hundreds of years.

        Like

      • @ Marc C

        I already showed it shifted you are the one late too the party. I really suggest you come back to Earth with the rest of us and enjoy this fresh air, regarding your “sources”:

        Talmud/ Mishna- Useless as this is different from biblical Hebrew, also late, also feature Aramaic.
        Isaiah- Again useless as they were basically a cult up in the mountains

        You are simply making assumptions and ignoring the nearest LIVING DIALECT. Like what are we even discussing??

        Next never claimed a translation survived as I don’t think one existed because no early Christians spoke it.

        Scribes changed the Bible to match a translation in Greek, good save…

        So long story short let’s ignore what the living dialect says and use a name that has no evidence nor tradition to back it up, got it.

        Like

      • 1.What matters is not whether they could speak “Biblical Hebrew, in Jesus’ time, no one argued they could. What matters is was pronounced at the time of Jesus lived. You still did not deal with the primary evidence from this period. Please address this.

        2. Please quote the part post 2012 that consensus has shifted.

        3. “Scribes changed the Bible to match a translation in Greek, good save… “. That is according to scholars what happened, in certain cases. So please, cite the scholarly opinion why NT predominantly agrees with LXX over MT and if you differ with the scholars’ view explain your reasons for doing so.

        Like

  4. Hmm. Syriac is in mirror image.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Abraham, Moses, and David’s faith in Yahweh in the OT included the promise of the future champion (The Messiah) who would:

    crush the serpent / Satan’s head (Genesis 3:15)
    Be a blessing to all the nations (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:17-18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10)
    Son of David and Lord at the right hand of Yahweh. Psalm 110:1
    son of man of Daniel 7:13-14
    Jews of Jesus’ day understood Messiah would be Son of God and son of man of Daniel 7 – Mark 14:60-64
    The Messiah would be the atonement in Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 52:13-15 to 53:1-12

    They are the true Monotheists who also looked forward to the future Messiah. They were saved before Jesus came into the world in the incarnation and virgin birth. (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Luke 1-2; Matthew 1:18-25)

    John 8:56-58

    Abraham rejoiced to see My day
    Before Abraham was born, I am (Yahweh)

    John 5:39-40

    You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

    John 5:46
    Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

    Matthew 22:41-45
    Shows Messiah is son of David
    and Lord (Deity)
    and that the Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit

    proof of Deity of Christ to the Jews

    Like

  6. We would claim that Jehovah always had the death of Christ in view when he forgave sins in the OT.

    Beginning with the protoevangelium in Genesis.

    The burnt offering made atonement because it prefigured the death of Christ.

    So God never forgave sin without Christ even where he is not explicitly mentioned as the cause. There was never forgiveness apart from him.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus never taught this strange doctrine.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jesus said that He is the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the ransom / substitutionary atonement for sin – Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28

        John the Baptist ( Yahya یحیی ) said that Jesus is the ransom / substitutionary atonement and fulfillment of Passover and all the OT sacrifices – John 1:29

        The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
        John 1:29

        See also Revelation 5:9; 7:9

        Like

      • From the reading of the evangelion, Jesus must be stoned to death (and not put on a stick) if he died for everyone’s chait and to satify himself. Prophecy aside!
        That’s all I have to say.

        Like

      • O man of the Kitab, do reason with the Torah, Tehillim, the many (not just four pieces of) Evangelion and the Recitation at hand. Set aside the Prophets (i.e. Isaias), other Writings, Epistles, and Apocalypses since we have to examine these with utmost discernment.

        Also, we stand by the “Do not argue with the people of the Kitab except…” verse in the Recitation so if you menace with the ones that are supposed to be set aside, it’s just mental gymnastics.

        By the way, wishing to see the Bishop of Rome save himself and his mother Church from ignorance of what has been the same concept the world has taught since time immemorial. Kingdom is within!

        Like

    • “The burnt offering made atonement because it prefigured the death of Christ.”

      Is this reasoning from the scriptures or your own ?

      Like

    • So Jesus has to be burned at the stake for everyone’s chait? How innovative, but still ludicrous.

      Did the Romans even practiced burning at the stake pre-Inquisition?

      By the way, Nathan forgave David’s chait, so it’s enough. No Christos needed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • So Jesus has to be burned at the stake for everyone’s chait? Innovative, but still ludicrous. Did the Romans practice execution by burning pre-Inquisition?

      Nathan forgave David’s chait. No Christos needed!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: