Talk:Aramaic of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I just want to congratulate the authors of this article on a very thorough and informative piece of work. Very impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.62.19 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Suggestion to move or rename article 2 Presuppose Aramaic Primacy? 3 Question 4 The Semitic utterances of Jesus are not proof for his use of Aramaic 5 Jesus and Hebrew 6 Aramaic alphabet? 7 Aramaic of Jesus 8 Talitha 9 Golgotha 10 Boanerges 11 "Christians believe..." 12 KJV and NIV English renditions in article

[edit] Suggestion to move or rename article

This article covers a narrow point of view and goes well beyond general interest in the subject. It is in fact a controversy and should be moved to or renamed as a page about Aramaic in general. Burpboohickie (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is specific, but not narrow. There is a rather full article on the Aramaic language, which only just touches on Jesus. Jesus' use of Aramaic and its perceived occurrence in the New Testament are widely discussed issues. The existence of controversy does not preclude the existence of the page. The evidence and academic opinion are broadly behind the stance of this article, which is cautious when making remarks that are not accepted by all. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gareth on this one. This page is too specific to be merged with the general article on the Aramaic language, but broad enough within scholarship to hold on it's own, with the published works of dozens (possibly hundreds over the years) of scholars who have sought after the issue of the Aramaic of Jesus, specifically. Furthermore, this article has no more controversy than nearly any other issue within Christianity, is well-worded and well-sourced. A move would not be appropriate. אמר Steve Caruso 15:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presuppose Aramaic Primacy?

How do the scholarly, well-accepted reconstructions of Jesus sayings recorded in Aramaic (in the Greek no less) presuppose Aramaic Primacy? Those words are in Aramaic.

Would it be best for me to put the reconstructions elsewhere, outside of the headers? (preceding unsigned comment by The Thadman (talk · contribs) 04:35, 5 July 2005)

There is no primary source that produces these words as you have written them: they are reconstructions. Also, there is a general rule-of-thumb in the Manual of Style that titles and headers are kept simple (they serve as anchors for internal links). As this is an English language encyclopaedia we should give the quotation in English first, then give the primary source for that quotation, which is still Greek, and only then suggest what the underlying Aramaic should be. If we jump straght to a reconstruction of Aramaic, we are not showing the reasoning behind that claim. Gareth Hughes 5 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

The primary source is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer-Gingrinch-Danker. This is the standard reference. Of course it is primarily Greek, however it lists Aramaic words in the Aramaic alphabet also. I will check/verify the Aramaic and add it to the body. (preceding unsigned comment by 63.201.24.7 (talk · contribs) 02:48, 19 August 2005)

[edit] Question

'Barabbas (Βαραββας from bar-Abbâ, 'son of the father'). ' - as far as I know, Abba was used as a name in that time, as well as its meaning as "Father". (preceding unsigned comment by 212.179.59.161 (talk · contribs) 08:37, 9 August 2005)

[edit] The Semitic utterances of Jesus are not proof for his use of Aramaic

We have three semitic utterances of Jesus. Indeed there are Aramaic words in them, but that is not enough to conclude for Aramaic as the language of Jesus. Why? Because the used forms of the verbs speek for normal Hebrew. The form 'koum' (in Talitha koum) is equal in Hebrew and in Aramaic and is not decisive.

The form 'sabachtani' (in Eloï Eloï lama sabachtani) is definitely Hebrew. In normal Aramaic and in Hebrew we would expect here 'sebachtani'. Without suffix the form is in Aramaic 'sebachta' and in Hebrew 'sabachta'. It is this Hebrew form that we recognize in 'sabachtani'. So we have here a les correct Hebrew form, but Hebrew anyway. Interesting is that the Aramaic word 'sebach' is used in the Mishna (Hebrew) instead of the old Hebrew word 'azab'. So the Aramaic 'sebach' was definitly a loanword in Hebrew in Jesus' days.

Than, last but not least: Effatha (Become open). In Aramaic this would be (two possibilities): Effetha (etpe'el) or Effattha (etpa'al). Comparing with Effatha we see in the first case 'e' instead of 'a', and in the second case 'double t' instead of 'one t'. The Hebrew form is 'Hiffatha', but in the Greek transliteration of the Greek New Testament and the Septuaginta (the old Greek translation of the Old Testament) 'Hi' becomes 'E'. And so the Heberew Hiffatha becomes Effatha in Greek transliteration. The same is to see in the word 'Geënna' (place of the dead) which is in Hebrew 'Gehinna' (hi becomes ë). There are more examples to give for this phenomenon in Hebrew: Ezekia, Ennom, Ellel, Eddekel, etc.

The conclusion is the simple fact that Jesus used Aramaic loanwords when he spoke sometimes Hebrew. It is not possible to conclude from the Semitic utterances of Jesus that Aramaic was daily life language in Israël in the first century. Archeological findings are neither conclusive for this standpoint. What is the meaning of this all?

1. The widespread idea that Jesus spoke Aramaic is a myth. 2. Hebrew and Greek were the two languages of the people in Jerusalem in Jesus time as we can learn from the two groups of christians in the Jerusalem church: a Greek speeking and a Hebrew speeking group. Greek representing the lower social class and Hebrew representing the upper class. (Acts 6:1-2) 3. As Jesus spoke in public to the lost sheep of Israël he spoke surely Greek (to the lower social class). 4. During the second temple Jews spoke Hebrew in Judea to keep the knowledge of the Old Testament (Hebrew) alive. 5. At home Jesus learned also Hebrew and he used it selectively, to people who had learned Hebrew at home, for instance to the daughter of the overseer of the synagogue in Kafarnaüm to raise her from the dead. 6. The teachings of Jesus in the gospels are not translations from Aramaic and even not of Hebrew. So we meet the original words of Jesus in the Greek New Testament. 7. The final conclusion is that Christians possess the original words of Jesus, the founder of their faith, in contrast with the opinion of both liberal and orthodox theologians that christians don't have the authentic words of Jesus (ipsissima verba) at all. (The mass of implications of this position for New Testament theology I have discussed in my book: 'De vastheid van het gesproken woord.' B.J.E. van Noort, Importantia Publishing, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2004. www.teologia.nl) (preceding unsigned comment by 62.234.63.113 (talk · contribs) 22:15, 15 August 2005)

I can agree with most of what is said above, but some is simple point-of-view. I agree that this article also has a decided POV, which has been growing over the last few months, while I've been busy on other things. I would like to move this article to something a wee bit more useful, like Language in the New Testament. This means that the article is not just limited to Jesus or Aramaic — we could discuss Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and other NT writings. Also, a change in title might deter supporters of popular theories. --Gareth Hughes 19:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

'Just to discuss some of these points. talitha koumi is both recorded as talitha koum and talitha koumi depending on which Greek tradition one uses. In several dialects of Aramaic, the final yod is silent, but still written. Additionally the word talitha is not a Hebrew word at all.

When it comes to eloi eloi lama sabachthani, eloi comes from the Aramaic elâhi ("my God"). Greek is incapable of producing an "h" sound in the middle of words, and the rest is transcription, letter for letter. Second, sabachthani comes from shbaqtani (you have forsaken me) Greek lacking phonetic equivalents for shin and qof. It is transcribed letter for letter (as closely as possible) from Aramaic. sabachthani if read as Hebrew is jibberish, especially given how the Greek renders it.

Finally, with the case of effatha it comes from the Aramaic word ethfathakh (be opened), once again Greek phonology and syllabic formation being the major problem with translitterating foreign words.

I strongly suggest that you read the works of Bruce Chilton, Maurice Casey, and the late Matthew Black.

-- Steve Caruso 00:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus and Hebrew

How can it be said that there "is little evidence either from within the New Testament or beyond to support" Jesus' knowing Hebrew, when it says in Luke 4 that he picks up an Isaiah scroll and reads from it? Hebrew may not have been "important" in 1st. century A.D. Palestine in the sense of being spoken by large numbers of people in everyday usage, but it must have been extremely difficult to get yourself accepted as any kind of educated Jewish religious leader (i.e. one qualified to "teach in a synagogue") without knowing it... AnonMoos 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Within the timeperiod of the 1st Century, Judea had long since started using Aramaic Targums in a tradition of reading the Hebrew followed by this Aramaic interpretation. Steve Caruso 00:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Any Aramaic would have been in addition to the Hebrew, not instead of the Hebrew. Formal Torah Scrolls would have been completely in Hebrew (with no Aramaic), and someone who couldn't handle one would have been considered a poor claimant to being a Jewish religious leader. AnonMoos 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

However, formal Torah scrolls found contemporary to Jesus' lifetime are riddled with evidence that Hebrew was not the vernacular language of the communities (be this in the form of Aramaic words, grammar, spelling, commentaries etc.). The idea of a leader not being "trustworthy" because they do not know the original language of what their religious texts is a new phenomena. Back then it was rare if one could read. :-) We have no chronicles of any such disputes (as far as I know) other than some outcry against the influx of Greek over Aramaic (i.e. Flavius Josephus). We can also note that in the 1st Century there was an emphasis on the forming Oral Torah within various sects of Judaism, which was carried down in Aramaic. --Steve Caruso 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It being singly attested to in Luke (or does Matthew also mention it? or was it in the corpus of Q reading? I cannot recall at the moment..) that Jesus "picked up the Isaiah scroll" is not sufficient evidence that he was extremely well versed in the Hebrew language (in my humble opinion). It 'could' have been a Targum and within Luke, the actual story quoted is closest to the Septuagint in rendition rather than any existant Hebrew Tanakh, if I'm not mistaken. -- Steve Caruso 00:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This would only be relevant if you imagine that someone wrote down Jesus' words as he read them, and that this steganographic record was then translated into Greek completely independently of all other scriptural texts. AnonMoos 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Then, as I said before, it is not good evidence. As far as what's discernable, he could have read from a Coptic scroll. However, that would be extremely unlikely. ;-) All the story (which does not fit several historical criteria proposed by the Jesus Seminar) claims is that Jesus picked up the scroll of Isaiah. Nothing more. --Steve Caruso 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus spoke Hebrew as his mother tongue. The notion that Aramaic replaced Hebrew after the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity is unfounded. When one begins to actually study the evidence from the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the Intertestamental period, the New Testament, extra Biblical sources as well as the very words of Jesus that have been transliterated, it becomes extremely apparent that Hebrew was the language that He used with His disciples, in the market places, teaching the masses and having debates with the religious leaders of His day. For a comprehensive discussion on the language of Jesus visit: [[1]]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of scholarship disagrees with that assertion for many reasons, some of which are:

• The shift to Aramaic in the youngest books of the Tanakh,
• The "square" Hebrew script that is in use today (and at the time of Jesus) is an Aramaic script that was adopted from the Babylonians.
• Mundane Aramaic items such as shopping lists, pottery shards, minted coins, etc.
• The bulk of commentaries on the Hebrew texts in Aramaic including oral traditions and the Targums,
• Aramaic words, grammar, and spelling creeping into Hebrew documents (many wonderfun examples can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls),

The list goes on... :-)

--Steve Caruso 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone could read Aramaic, they would have little trouble reading Hebrew. Hebrew was used as a liturgical language in Jesus' time. However, the prevalence of targums and formal Jewish documents and contracts in Aramaic suggests that even religious Jerusalem Jews used Aramaic as their first language. Religious Jews would probably have been taught how to read biblical Hebrew, but targums were read alongside them. The internal evidence from the untranslated words attributed to Jesus in the gospels is that he spoke Aramaic. --Gareth Hughes 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aramaic alphabet?

In the last sentence of many of the subheadings in this article, it claims that "In the Aramaic alphabet, it would be...", but what follows looks to me like Hebrew characters, not Aramaic. This might be a display problem on my part where it replaces Aramaic text with Hebrew, but as far as I know Unicode does not have Aramaic letters. --3345345335534 18:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested in the past that these lines were not appropriate, but they have been added back in. Of course, Hebrew 'square script' was used to write Aramaic long before it was used to write Hebrew, and long before the use of the Syriac alphabet. --Gareth Hughes 18:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Still, wouldn't naming it Aramaic alphabet be misleading? It is, after all, known as the Hebrew alphabet in modern usage. Maybe shortening the text so it reads "In Aramaic, it would be..." since that doesn't give the false impression that the actual writing system used is Aramaic. --3345345335534 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Writing early Aramaic which is not specifically Syriac with the Hebrew alphabet is a fairly common scholarly practice, and 1st. century A.D. Jews would have written the Hebrew and Aramaic languages with the same alphabet most of the time. The exact 1st. century A.D. script used would not be available as a font on most people's browsers, and wasn't structurally any different from the basic consonantal Hebrew alphabet anyway. AnonMoos

---

Maybe there's some misunderstanding over what I'm trying to say. I'm not against using the Hebrew alphabet to write Aramaic, I'm against using the Hebrew alphabet and calling it the Aramaic alphabet. That's why I suggested shortening the text to "In Aramaic, it would be..." as to not create confusion. --3345345335534 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

THE SQUARE SCRIPT IS THE ARAMAIC ALPHABET. IT WAS ADOPTED TO WRITE THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. OLD HEBREW WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ARAMAIC SQUARE SCRIPT. THE SYRIAC SCRIPT, THE SCRIPT OF THE PESHITTA, WAS DEVELOPED AFTER THE ARAMAIC SQUARE SCRIPT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. Sorry I have to shout! See Hebrew alphabet: "The modern script used for writing Hebrew (usually called the Jewish script by scholars, and also traditionally known as the square script, or the Assyrian script—not to be confused with the Eastern variant of the Syriac alphabet), evolved during the 3rd century BC from the Aramaic script, which was used by Jews for writing Hebrew since the 6th century BC. Prior to that, Hebrew was written using the old Hebrew script, which evolved during the 9th century BC from the Phoenician script; the Samaritans still write Hebrew in a variant of this script for religious works (see Samaritan alphabet)." The Siloam inscription is in the original Hebrew alphabet. The Mesha Stele is in the original Hebrew alphabet. Etc.

Just to clarify, the Jews adopted the Aramaic square script to record Hebrew during the Babylonian exile between the first and second temple. First temple Jews used the Old Hebrew alphabet, which is not the Aramaic square script, see references above.

More info: Samaritan alphabet: "The Samaritan alphabet is a direct descendant of the paleo-Hebrew variety of the Phoenician alphabet, the more commonly known Hebrew alphabet having been adapted from the Aramaic alphabet under the Persian Empire. Large parts of the Hebrew Bible were originally penned in this script. Among the Jews it saw a short revival during the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Tetragrammaton was often still written in this script for some time after the current Hebrew alphabet was adopted among the Jews."

Of course, all the words that are discussed in this article are transmitted through the medium of Greek, so the Greek transcription is most important, and any Aramaic is, to some extent, a reconstruction. The Peshitta and Old Syriac texts are useful as witnesses in Aramaic, albeit in a later, eastern dialect. Reference to Syriac sources would be the one reason to used Syriac script in the article. Square script would be the most appropriate way to render the Aramaic words as individual entities (i.e. dictionary definitions, rather than reconstructions), remembering that we are dealing not with inscriptions, but with oral transmission through the medium of Greek. — Gareth Hughes 18:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aramaic of Jesus

Haldrik,

This article is about the Aramaic of Jesus, not the Hebrew of Jesus. Most modern scholars agree that Jesus' mothertongue was Aramaic rather than Hebrew and that if he knew Hebrew that he did not know very much of it (Funk, Crossan, Borg, Chilton, Miller, Vermes, Tatum, Casey, Smith, Black, etc. etc. etc.). It is a small fringe group that believes that Jesus spoke Hebrew, and in an article such as this I believe that they are worth a mention in a section at the bottom of the article, but are by no means the consensus amongst scholars. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 22:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The assumption that Hebrew itself was extinct and only a literary language is no longer tenable. Hebrew continued to flourish as both a spoken and written language throughout the Early Roman Period. I ask that certain statements regarding Hebrew per se be more cautious to reflect awareness of more recent scholarship. --Haldrik 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, whether Jesus himself spoke Hebrew or Aramaic is a separate question. Chilton does believe Jesus spoke Hebrew (as well as Aramaic). Vermes also believes he knew both, not to mention Meier. Crossan, Smith, and Funk and some other members of the Jesus Seminar are to some extent popularizing outdated scholarship. I don't mind this article focusing specifically on "what if" Jesus only spoke Aramaic because certain (but not all) transliterations seem Aramaic. I think a separate article called Hebrew of Jesus can be written for those who advocate "what if" Jesus only spoke Hebrew. --Haldrik 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read Chilton's books (and for a brief period of time I actually worked with him, and hopefully in the somewhat near future I will be doing so again). His conclusions were that any knowledge of Hebrew that Jesus would have had would have been more than secondary to Aramaic and in fact now he is working on a project to teach the Aramaic language through the reconstructed teachings and dialogue of Jesus. The same with Vermes and Meier: Hebrew as secondary (be it in written or spoken) to Aramaic. I've studied under Mahlon H. Smith for several years, and although his forté was Koine Greek, his understanding of Aramaic and linguistic studies on the topic were not outdated, and from what I have read from the rest I had mentioned, while there is a misconception here and there, most of their conclusions seem up to date. :-)

This all aside, I genuinely do like the idea of starting an article that goes over the Hebrew-speaking Jesus theories, as (although I may seem a bit stern over it) I do believe that there is some merit to go over in them. :-) Exploring published theories about the linguistic geography in Jesus' day is important and I feel a boon to this encyclopedia. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 01:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talitha

Interesting. I always thought that Talitha meant "she who is asleep". As a Chaldo-Assyrian, I know what I'm talking about - what about anyone else, who would care to discuss this possibility?Tourskin 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I pretty happy with the root טלא in Aramaic meaning 'young' and the feminine noun derived from it meaning 'girl'. I find that pretty straightforward. So, where do you get 'sleep' from? — Gareth Hughes 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golgotha

«John 19:17: And carrying his cross by himself, he went out to the so-called Place of the Skull, which is called in 'Hebrew' Golgotha. This is clearly Aramaic rather than Hebrew.»
It's not correct! It's neither Aramaic nor Hebrew, it's Indo-European. Golgotha comes from Skr. Galūgāthā, where galū 'head' (Latvian galva) and gāthā 'way' (Latvian gāte, gatve 'avenue', gāt 'to go'). Roberts7 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks nice, but it comes from Aramaic. Although the root גלל is not the most clear of derivations, it happens to be well attested. — Gareth Hughes 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boanerges

I was looking at this last night and realized that ra'im,is another example of the old pronuciation of the Ayin,the former Gayin,thus rag'm,not simply ra'm.

[edit] "Christians believe..."

The sentence "Christians believe that he knew all languages because he was omnipotent." comes as a shock to me as a Christian, as neither I, nor any other Christians I know hold this strange belief. Someone working on this page ought to either strike this sentence entirely or at least qualify it or provide information about precisely *which* Christians hold this belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messmer (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone did revert it a few days later. But 'Dashee' has re-instated it (1 March). So I have reverted it again. His/her claim is (how to put this delicately?) 'surprising'. Can he/she adduce some decent citable sources to support the claim? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This could be qualified by writing "many evangelical christians believe that in His omniscience and as Creator of all, the Christ the Son of God was able to understand and speak all languages". Pete g1 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KJV and NIV English renditions in article

Hi all,
Ecclesiastes 3:7?
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)