Pronunciation of Jesus' Real Name
1MAN4ALL
> It seems that 1Man4All ignored the point about spelling. I have, in
the
> past, voiced my disagreement with Shibli Zaman's Eesho=Eesa argument.
I
> have also, for many years now, long abandoned the polemic that
> Esau=Eesa (which, as many have gleefully pointed out, Ahmed Deedat
> unwittingly endorsed). However, if we're going to get all bent out of
> shape on this issue, it seems plainly obvious that Eesa
> (ayn-yaa-seen-alif[maqsoora]) is closer to the Arabic rendering of
Esau
> (ayn-yaa-seen-waw) than it is to the Aramaic name for Jesus sometimes
> pronounced Eesho (yod-shin-vav-ayin). The spelling of Eesho is
> identical to the Hebrew Y'shua and the Arabic Yasuwa (i.e. what Arab
> Christians call Jesus).
I am not exactly sure what you are implying. Does the Arabic name for
Esau, which is "Eisoo" [AYN YA SIN WAW], sounds like "Eisa"? Yes, but
what does that prove? I can just as easily compare Jesus' name in Greek
"Iesous" with his Greek name "Usoos", identified in Philo of Byblos'
writings reported by Eusebius, and come to similar conclusions,
whatever they may be.
It is important to first agree on whether Jesus must have an 'official'
name or an official pronunciation of his name, and how one goes about
establishing it. Is the historical name from which somebody's name is
derived more accurate or the actual name by which a person was called
or known by? How can anyone know for sure what the actual
pronunciations were thousands of years ago, especially when the
language from which historic names are derived has evolved into
something else? Can similar languages be used to figure out ancient
pronunciations?
These are difficult questions for which there are no clear answers. As
you seem to have missed some of my past comments on this issue, allow
me to provide a brief summary. Since my last discussion with Anonmoos
and Mr. Gursey I have also updated some of the information and made
some corrections. I have also limited my references to
Internet-verifiable links to make it easy for you as well as for
others:
1. It is almost a certainty that there were several different dialects
spoken during Jesus' lifetime. According to Wikipedia, "Seven
dialects of Western Aramaic were spoken in Jesus' time. They were
probably distinctive yet mutually intelligible." The story of
Pentecost also seems to confirm that view. Some Christian web sites
suggest that Luke names 16 regions, and according to at least one, most
Biblical scholars agree that there were 12 different dialects spoken
during Jesus' time. A Jewish web site commenting on Pentecost states
the following: "Luke reported that the local Galilaeans were heard
speaking fifteen different dialects on Shavuos. Again this is some type
of proposed / suggested miracle by Luke. It would be foolish to deny
that out of 120 people you couldn't find fifteen different dialects
from among them. In the Christian / Messianic world that is unlikely
but in Judaism it is a cakewalk. Yosef the son of Yaakov prince of
Egypt spoke seventy different dialects. The men referred to in the New
Testament as the chief priests and elders also spoke seventy
dialects...There are many examples of individuals speaking more than
just fifteen dialects. That is no surprise to us." [See
http://www.jewishpath.org/essaysajewishanalysis.html] So it is very
possible that Jesus may have been called by different names by
different people.
2. Nobody knows for sure how Jesus' name was pronounced but if one must
insist on accuracy then he or she has to search Aramaic texts, not
Hebrew, Greek or Latin, because Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic. In
Peshitta Bible, Jesus' name is written as "Eesho M'sheekha," and that's
what Jesus must have been called. In Aramaic, the Yod is pronounced
with an "EE" sound when it is used as a vowel and as a "Y" when it is
used as a consonant. In Jesus' name, it was used as a vowel and
therefore Jesus' name was pronounced as "eeshoa," not "Yeesho" in
Aramaic. Since people at that time-- depending on their dialect-must
have pronounced "SHIN" and SIN" sounds interchangeably, Jesus must have
been called Eisho, Eiso, Eishaw or Eisaw.
3. The Question of Western and Eastern Aramaic. An objection has been
raised that Peshitta Bible cannot be used as a reference as there was a
difference in Eastern and Western Aramaic. Classification of Aramaic is
a highly controversial subject and unfortunately the information
available is confusing and contradictory. The reason for that is that
various dialects of Aramaic overlap regions and periods. Not only that,
Eastern Aramaic itself is often divided between Eastern and Western
sub-categories. A suggestion to consider a "Central Aramaic" as a
category has its own problems because of regional overlaps that
existed. The problem is further compounded by migrations of
Aramaic-speaking groups, influence of Greek/Latin [Greeks referred to
all Aramaic as Syriac], Arabic and Hebraic writings. Efrem Yildiz in
his article, "The Aramaic Language and its Classification," states,
"Modern investigators do not agree unanimously on the divisions and
subdivisions of the Aramaic language..." Yildiz has provided a
useful classification system in his article, the link of which I have
provided below, which we may use as our guide, even though the Editor
of the Journal had to add a note at the end hinting that there may
still be confusion. One may also want to read Ari Zivotofsky's
article, "What's the Truth about...Aramaic?", the link of which I
have provided below"
Yildiz divides Aramaic into five Phases: Ancient Aramaic, Official
Aramaic, Middle Aramaic, Late Aramaic, and Modern Aramaic. For the
sake of this discussion, we would limit ourselves to Middle and Late
Aramaic, as those are the periods in which Christianity developed. The
Classification is as follows:
MIDDLE ARAMAIC (200 B.C to 250 A.D)
1. Western Aramaic
a. Christian (Syriac) Aramaic
b. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
c. Qumran Aramaic
d. Nabatean Aramaic
e. Official Aramaic of Targumims
2. Eastern Aramaic
a. Syriac Aramaic
b. Palmyrene Aramaic
c. Aramaic of Hatra
d. Arsacid Aramaic
LATE ARAMAIC (200 B.C to 13th century A.D)
1. Western Aramaic
a. Galilean Aramaic
b. Samaritan Aramaic
c. Christian Aramaic (Syriac)
d. Palestinian Aramaic
e. Mandaic Aramaic
2. Eastern Aramaic
a. Syriac Aramaic
b. Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic
c. Mandaic Aramaic
[The reason that Yildiz has listed Mandaic Aramaic under Eastern as
well as Western Aramaic is probably because of disagreement as to which
category it belongs to. However, most people now consider Mandaic to be
Eastern Aramaic.]
There are also those who consider "Central Aramaic" to be the third
category, having elements of both Eastern and Western Aramaic. This
dialect, according to Zivotofsky , was spoken in Edessa and Nissbis and
is "found in such works as Targum (Pseudo-) Jonathan on Chamush,
Targum Psalms, and canonical Targum of Job, and Tobit." Because of
the mixture of dialects and links between Christian communities, even
Yildiz had to put "Christian" Syriac in Western and Eastern
categories. So if Peshitta Bible was written in Edessa, the authors
must have been familiar with both Western and Eastern Aramaic or spoke
a mixture of both dialects. The difference between Eastern and Western
Aramaic was one of accent and some idiomatic expressions, not one of
vocabulary.
It is said that Jesus spoke Galilean (Western) Aramaic and Paul spoke
in Eastern Aramaic. However, it is difficult to know for sure, as most
ancient text in that dialect, according to Yildiz, "date between 200
and 700 AD." According to Wikipedia, "There is very little evidence
for the use of Hebrew during this period. The various words in the
Greek context of the New Testament that are untranslated are clearly
Aramaic rather than Hebrew. From the little evidence there is, this
Aramaic is not Galilean Aramaic but Old Judaean [Palestinian Aramaic].
This suggests that the words of Jesus were transmitted in the dialect
of Judaea and Jerusalem rather than that of his hometown."
A place of great interest is Ma'loula, in modern day Syria, where
Aramaic is still spoken. In fact, Syrian government still advertises
Ma'loula, which is also home to some of the earliest churches, as the
place "where Aramaic; the language spoken by Christ (pbuh) is still
used as a living language." Because of Ma'loula's close proximity to
northern Israel, it is possible that the Aramaic spoken there is indeed
close to Aramaic spoken by Jesus. On the other hand, Mandeans, who
also speak Aramaic to this day, follow John the Baptist and claim to be
the descendants of his earliest followers, speak Eastern Aramaic. Most
early Christian literature, with the exception of Greek, was typically
written in Syriac.
So the picture that emerges is that of a region rich in different
dialects, and, as I stated above, Jesus indeed may have been called by
different names.
References:
http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v14n1/e8.pdf#search='Classification%20of%20Aramaic'
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5762summer/LEGAL-EA.PDF#search='Ari%20Zivotofsky%20What's%20the%20truth'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
4. The interchangeability of SHIN and SIN sounds in Hebrew goes back to
thousands of years. [Hebrew had only one letter for both sounds]. This
is confirmed by the Bible; see Judges 12:5-6. It is not clear however
if Ephraimites were the only ones who could not pronounce "SHIN." But
it would be a fair assumption that people of Judah who lived in the
south were able to do so. That would mean that people of northern
Israel pronounced "SHIN" as "SAMECH" whereas people in the south and
east pronounced it the way it should be. Even today's Jews are not sure
if "SHIN" and "SIN" were once pronounced the same. This is also
confirmed by 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which is now available on
the Internet: "One sound, SIN, appears only in Hebrew, in Phoenician,
and in the older Aramaic. It must originally have been pronounced very
like SH, since it is represented in writing by the same character; in
later times it was changed into an ordinary S. Assyrian does not
distinguish it from SH."
http://22.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SE/SEMITIC_LANGUAGES.htm
5. Can Modern Hebrew be used as a guide to guess 'correct'
pronunciations of ancient Biblical names? The answer is clearly, No.
First, one needs to know the history of Modern Hebrew.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew_language
"After the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, it [Hebrew] became
primarily a literary language, used mostly in prayer and to study the
Mishnah (part of the Talmud). It was reborn as a spoken language during
the late 19th and 20th century as Modern Hebrew, replacing Arabic,
Ladino, Yiddish and other languages of the Jewish diaspora as the
spoken language of the majority of the Jewish people living in
Israel."... " Hebrew was not used as a spoken language for roughly 2300
years... The most important contribution to preserving traditional
Hebrew pronunciation in this period was that of scholars called
Masoretes (from Masoret 'tradition'), who from about the seventh to the
tenth centuries CE devised detailed markings to indicate vowels,
stress, and cantillation (recitation methods). ...The revival of Hebrew
as a spoken language was initiated by the efforts of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda
(1858-1922). Ben-Yehuda, previously an ardent revolutionary in Tsarist
Russia, had joined the Jewish national movement and emigrated to
Palestine in 1881. Motivated by the surrounding ideals of renovation
and rejection of the diaspora lifestyle, Ben-Yehuda set out to develop
a new language that the Jews could use for everyday communication...
While at first many considered his work as fanciful, the need for a
common language was soon understood by many. A Committee of the Hebrew
Language was established. Later it became the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, an organization that still exists today. The results of his
work and the Committee's were published in a dictionary (The Complete
Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew). Ben-Yehuda's work fell on
fertile ground, and by the beginning of the 20th century, Hebrew was
well on its way to becoming the main language of the Jewish population
in Palestine. Ben-Yehuda based Modern Hebrew on Biblical Hebrew. When
the Committee set out to invent a new word for a certain concept, it
searched through the Biblical word-indexes and foreign dictionaries,
particularly ARABIC. While Ben-Yehuda preferred Semitic roots to
European ones, the abundance of European Hebrew speakers led to the
introduction of numerous foreign words. Other changes which had taken
place as Hebrew came back to life were the systematization of the
grammar (due to the Biblical syntax sometimes being limited and
ambiguous) and the adoption of standard Western punctuation. ..
Finally, Arabic, being the language of numerous Mizrahic and Sephardic
Jewish immigrants from Arab countries as well as of the Palestinians
and Israeli Arabs, has also had an important influence on
Hebrew...Modern Hebrew has a rich jargon, which is a direct result of
the flourishing youth culture. The two main features of this jargon are
the Arabic borrowings (for example, "sababa", "excellent", or
"kus-emmek", an expression of strong dissatisfaction which is extremely
obscene both in Arabic and in Modern Hebrew), and the obfuscated
idioms." So one can argue that using Modern Hebrew to establish
pronunciations of ancient names is highly problematic.
In WRITTEN Hebrew, the original name was "Yehoshua" (see Exodus 17:9)
which was pronounced as "Yeshua," with an AYN at the end. However when
the name was shortened to "Yeshu," the AYN was dropped and finally the
name of Jesus appeared in the Jewish Talmud as "Yeshu ha-Notzri" (i.e.
Jesus of Nazareth"). And to this day, Jesus is referred to as Yeshu in
Israel. There are various theories as to why the final AYN was dropped.
One theory is that "Yeshua" means "Saved" and since Jesus' couldn't
save himself (according to Jewish/Christian belief), his name was
shortened to Yeshu (without the AYN). The other theory is that the name
was simply shortened to Yeshu. More likely, it was due to Samaritan
Aramaic influence, as Wikipedia suggests that during Jesus' lifetime,
"Samaria had its distinctive Samaritan Aramaic, where the consonants
'he', 'heth' and '`ayin' all became pronounced as 'aleph'."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
6. Can Greek be used to establish correct pronunciation of Jesus' name?
Greeks living in Palestine at that time must have called him Iesous
(EE-AY-SOOCE' as per Strong's Concordance). Even if we assumes that the
Greeks were writing SIGMA but pronouncing it with SH sound, we would
still end up with something that would be far from exact. Furthermore,
linguistically speaking, Greek is a very different language. Using
distorted Greek versions of ancient Hebrew/Aramaic names to figure out
what original pronunciations sounded like is simply ridiculous. That's
like using English transliterations of Arabic to guess what those
Arabic words sounded like during the time of Prophet Muhammad! So Greek
or Latin is almost irrelevant to this discussion.
7. Did Islam invent the name "Eisa" for Jesus or got it confused with
Esau? There were several Christians living in Mecca and Medina, and had
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) invented this new name, they
certainly would have objected. Despite the fact that Quran and Muslim
historians themselves have faithfully recorded accusations of Pagans,
Christians and Jews who lived during the time of the Prophet, there is
not even a hint of this controversy. The presence of early Christians
in Mecca and the Bible itself can be proven by Hadith literature:
Bukhari:
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly.
She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used
to read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you
see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah
sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine
Message, I will support you strongly."
Another Hadith suggests that Waraqa was translating the Gospels into
Hebrew!
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3:
Narrated 'Aisha:
Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad
bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian
and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from
the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write...
Another Hadith suggests that Jews used to translate the Torah into
Arabic:
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew
and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah's
Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve
them, but say: "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us."
(2.136)
So Jesus and Esau must have been well-known figures in Arabia during
the time of Prophet Muhammad.
8. How the word Eisa came into Arabic? It must have come through Syria
(Eastern and Western Aramaic) and through Nabatean Aramaic (Western
Aramaic.) Syria and Hijaz had historical, cultural and trade links. It
is a historical fact that after Jesus, the Christian community moved to
Syria and that's where Paul was also heading to persecute Christians.
So it is in Syria where earliest Christians lived and their descendants
thrived, speaking the language (Aramaic) of their ancestors.
9. Even Christian scholars have now admitted that Muslims didn't invent
the name "Eisa" and it must have existed in Syria prior to the coming
of Islam. Here is a brief quote and references from this web site:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Mingana/Influence/
"So far as the word 'Isa (the name given to Jesus in the Kur'an) is
concerned, it was apparently in use before Muhammad, and it does not
seem probable that it was coined by him. A monastery in South Syria,
near the territory of the Christian Ghassanid Arabs, bore in A.D. 571
the name 'Isaniyah, that is to say, "of the followers of Jesus," i.e.
of the Christians. See fol. 84b of the Brit. Mus. Syr. MS. Add., 14,
602, which is of the end of the sixth, or at the latest of the
beginning of the seventh century (16). The Mandean pronunciation
"A'Iso" (17), is of no avail as the guttural 'é has in Mandaic the
simple pronunciation of a hamzah. The Mandean pronunciation is rather
reminiscent of 'Iso, as the name of Jesus was written in the Marcionite
Gospel used by the Syrians."
16 P.714 in Wright's Catalogue.
17 Nöldeke's Mand. Gram., xxix and 55; Lidzbarski. Mand. Liturgien,
191.
So when you consider that Christian congregation had moved to Syria
after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and in light of what I have
stated above, it becomes all the more clear that the Aramaic name for
Jesus must have been Eisho or Eiso/Eisaw.
1MAN4ALL
CORRECTION: "I can just as easily compare Jesus' name in Greek "Iesous"
with ESAU's Greek name "Usoos", identified in Philo of Byblos' writings
Rodney Kelp
for any religion that was written there. These people today
could not convince me today of any devine intervention of of any spirit.
These are the same people that were there 2000 years ago, 4000 years ago?
I'd have to say it's a lot of superstitious bunk.
They don't think twice about strapping on a bomb and blowing up innocent
women and children of their own. What kind of bibilical people could that
be? Not any I want to follow.
"1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106808102....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
1MAN4ALL
Rodney Kelp wrote:
> Looking at the people of the middle east today has destroyed any
credibility
> for any religion that was written there. These people today
> could not convince me today of any devine intervention of of any
spirit.
> These are the same people that were there 2000 years ago, 4000 years
ago?
> I'd have to say it's a lot of superstitious bunk.
> They don't think twice about strapping on a bomb and blowing up
innocent
> women and children of their own. What kind of bibilical people could
that
> be? Not any I want to follow.
That's totally irrelevant to this discussion. The short answer is:
Religion, like truth, stands clear from individuals, groups or nations.
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
news:<1106808102....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
Greetings 1Man4All...
I thought you were going to post this to SRI? Will we be duplicating
our conversation, or have you decided to keep it in ARI? Anyway, you
wrote a long post, but very little was relevant.
> I am not exactly sure what you are implying.
I was implying that "Eesa (ayn-yaa-seen-alif[maqsoora]) is closer to
the Arabic rendering of Esau (ayn-yaa-seen-waw) than it is to the
Aramaic name for Jesus sometimes pronounced Eesho (yod-shin-vav-ayin)."
I meant with regard to spelling. I was not promoting the Esau polemic,
but noting that if we're going to play this name game, it seems the
Qur'anic Eesa is *far* closer to the Arabic rendering of Esau than it
is the name of Jesus (however it may have been pronounced over the
centuries). Proponents of this Eesho/Eesa argument (like Shibli Zaman)
seem to rest everything on phonetics. The Esau polemic has not only
sound in its favor, but spelling as well.
> How can anyone know for sure what the actual
> pronunciations were thousands of years ago,
With Semitic languages, it can be hard. However, the name Y'shua is
found several times in the TaNaKh. Of course, you could correctly argue
that he way we pronounce a Hebrew name today could be drastically
different from the way it was pronounced two thousand years ago
(exempli grata: what many [Ashkenazee] Jews now pronounce "Rivka" was
probably pronounced something closer to "Rebeka" before the common
era). However, one way (that is, admittedly, not fool proof) to figure
out how a name was/is pronounced in a certain time period is to see how
it was transliterated into a European language from or near that tim
period (if we are fortunate enough to have examples). With regard to
the name under question (yod-shin-vav-ayn), we can check the Septuagint
for pre-common era transliterations, and the NT for transliterations
taking place just after the dawn of the common era. They are in
agreement with it being something along the lines of "iesou/iesous,"
which is not that different from the Hebrew pronunciation Y'shua/Y'shu.
I would also quickly note that Matthew 1:21 may have preserved the
actual pronunciation, as it attempts to play an OT-style name game. In
order to make sense of the verse, you have to guess which verb was
employed for "save". It seems the Hebrew reconstruction "Y'shua, ki hu
yoshia" makes the best sense.
> 2. Nobody knows for sure how Jesus' name was pronounced but if one
must
> insist on accuracy then he or she has to search Aramaic texts, not
> Hebrew, Greek or Latin, because Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic. In
> Peshitta Bible, Jesus' name is written as "Eesho M'sheekha," and
that's
> what Jesus must have been called.
First of all, I'm not so certain the Peshitta ends the argument, as it
has not been established how early (or late?) this text is. This text
is probably translated from Greek, thus the Greek texts might be more
helpful (or the Peshitta might be somewhat less helpful than you let
on). Second, the Peshitta has simply yod-shin-vav-ayn, and how that is
pronounced differs from person to person (or depends on which Aramaic
speaker is being questioned). For example, you can read the Peshitta
online and see that a rather different transliteration is present; see
the first chapter of Matthew, where the name is
transliterated/pronounced Yeshua:
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich1.pdf
This site used to have "Eesho" in some parts and "Eshoa" in others. So
it is not a done deal that the Aramaic name is pronounced "Eesho".
> 5. Can Modern Hebrew be used as a guide to guess 'correct'
> pronunciations of ancient Biblical names? The answer is clearly, No.
The answer is not clearly no. As was noted above, employing modern
Hebrew can be problematic, as the language (like all languages) has
evolved. What we can know, however, is if the present pronunciations
are similar to the ancient ones. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they
are not. In this case, there does not seem to be a tremendous amount of
change.
> So when you consider that Christian congregation had moved to Syria
> after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and in light of what I have
> stated above, it becomes all the more clear that the Aramaic name for
> Jesus must have been Eisho or Eiso/Eisaw.
No, it is not clear at all, for the reasons given above. Most ironic of
all, you continue to rest everything on sound, and pay no attention to
spelling. If you're going to argue that the name found in the Qur'an is
closer to Jesus' real name than is Y'shua, you're going to have to
explain the bizarre appearance of the ayn at the front of the name. So
far, you have offered nothing but "might of beens" about sound. If you
only want to argue about sound, then you're going to have to go beyond
"might have been" arguments and get a little closer, possibly with the
earliest possible transliteration of the name from an Aramaic text.
The Chozen Few
However the name was actually pronounced back in the day, I personally
prefer the Spanish pronunciation: "Hey, Zeus." Too bad the bit about
Athena popping out of his forehead went mything in action.
[big snip for brevity]
The Chozen Few
And you, of course, are among those all too many individuals throughout
history who've been convinced you know what the true religion is, and who've
typically been all too ready to join with others to form groups or nations
dedicated to eradicating all those who can't or won't be converted to it.
AnonMoos
of the first syllable, and an "s" sound (NOT a "z"!) at the beginning of
the second syllable. Ancient Greek Zeus was pronounced Dzeh-oos,
combined into one syllable. In any case, the "s" at the end of "Jesus"
is a Greek and Latin nominative singular case ending, which has nothing
to do with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic pronounciations of the name.
--
Some Qur'an quotes: 5:20 qaala muusaa 5:21 "yaa qawmi ´dkhuluu ´l-'arDa
´l-muqaddasata ´llatii kataba ´llaahu lakum" 17:104 waqulnaa ... libanii
'israa'iila "´skunuu ´l-'arDa" || In English: Moses said, "My people,
go into the Holy Land which God has assigned to you!" And we said to the
Children of Israel, "Inhabit the land!" http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
1MAN4ALL
Generally speaking, if you compare rule by religious people vs. rule by
Atheists, religious people have been much more tolerant of other belief
systems and non-belief. Most of the time when Atheists seized power,
they suppressed religion. Russia, China, Albania, and Cambodia are
prime examples.
AnonMoos
>Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
>> It seems that 1Man4All ignored the point about spelling.
Note to 1MAN4ALL: That's Mr. Giron's delicately diplomatic way of
informing you that you keep ignoring the `Ayn, despite the fact that
`Ayn is a NORMAL CONSONANT LIKE ANY OTHER CONSONANT in Arabic and the
other older Semitic languages (with the exception of Akkadian, of
course). If you wouldn't leave out the "s" or the "l" or the "m" when
transcribing the word Muslim from Arabic into the Latin alphabet, then
also don't leave out the `Ayn when you transcribe `Isa and other words
with an `Ayn -- it's as simple as that! If you think my use of the
left-apostrophe character is too unobtrusive, then you can transcribe
`Ayn with a "9" (9Ayn) as some linguists used to do in the typewriter
era, or you can transcribe it with a "3" (3Ayn) as Mr. Gursey does --
but JUST ENTIRELY LEAVING OUT THE `AYN IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AT
THIS LEVEL OF DISCUSSION WHICH YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PARTICIPATE IN!
>> I have long abandoned the polemic that Esau=Eesa. However, if we're
>> going to get all bent out of shape on this issue, it seems plainly
>> obvious that Eesa (ayn-yaa-seen-alif[maqsoora]) is closer to the
>> Arabic rendering of Esau (ayn-yaa-seen-waw) than it is to the Aramaic
>> name for Jesus sometimes pronounced Eesho (yod-shin-vav-ayin). The
>> spelling of Eesho is identical to the Hebrew Y'shua and the Arabic
>> Yasuwa (i.e. what Arab Christians call Jesus).
> I am not exactly sure what you are implying.
He's implying that it's highly curious that the `Ayn is at the beginning
of Hebrew `Eshaw (Esau) and Arabic `Isa (Jesus), but the `Ayn is at the
end of Hebrew and older Aramaic Yeshu` (Jesus).
> It is important to first agree on whether Jesus must have an
> 'official' name or an official pronunciation of his name, and how one
> goes about establishing it.
Whatever -- I have no idea at all what you think you mean by
"official name". However, linguists can attempt to discover (by means
of detailed historical analysis and reconstruction) what the original
1st century A.D. pronunciation of Jesus' name was in Hebrew and/or
Aramaic, and then can examine whether foreign-language versions of
Jesus' name correspond to the original pronunciation by normal processes
of linguistic development and habits of cross-linguistic adaptation.
Gursey has explained in mind-boggling detail in past posts on this
subject how Yeshu` was the likely 1st-century A.D. Hebrew/Aramaic
pronunciation of this name, and I've explained in excruciating detail
how Iesous (iota-eta-sigma-omicron-upsilon-sigma) was the closest
possible adaptation or borrowing of Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu` within the
Greek of the first century A.D.
However, Arabic `Isa (with `Ayn at the BEGINNING OF THE NAME) is not the
closest possible possible adaptation of Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu` (with `Ayn
at the END OF THE NAME) according to normal processes of linguistic
development, or the normal patterns of borrowing Hebrew and Aramaic
words into Arabic.
> How can anyone know for sure what the actual pronunciations were
> thousands of years ago, especially when the language from which
> historic names are derived has evolved into something else?
Nothing can be known with absolute 100.000% certainty, but linguistis
have procedures and methodologies of scientific historical
reconstruction which make some things a hell of a lot likelier than
other things. Since you know absolutely nothing about scientific
linguistic reconstruction, you would avoid deriding it from your
position of ignorance, if you were wise...
And as I've said before, you're treading on pretty thin ice here, since
the consonant dots of Arabic writing were used very erratically and
unsystematically until more than 50 years after Muhammad's death; and
complete manuscripts of the Qur'an fully annotated with vowel marks,
shadda, sukun, etc. didn't exist until well over a hundred years after
Muhammad's death.
> 1. It is almost a certainty that there were several different dialects
> spoken during Jesus' lifetime.
Yes, and I think I was the one who told you about that in the first place.
However, trying to count the dialects is an extremely pointless exercise.
(Sometimes it's basically impossible for linguists to meaningfullly
"count" dialects even in modern situations where they can go wherever they
want and ask whatever questions they like -- much less the 1st century
A.D. Aramaic speech area, for which we have rather limited information.)
> 2. Nobody knows for sure how Jesus' name was pronounced but if one
> must insist on accuracy then he or she has to search Aramaic texts,
> not Hebrew,
Whatever -- as I told you before, there are almost no written records of
1st century A.D. Galilean or Judean Western Aramaic, and those which do
exist tend to be brief funerary inscriptions with no indication of short
vowels and only partial and ambiguous indication of long vowels. First
century A.D. Western Aramaic was simply not much of a literary language.
If you're implying that the only relevant and authentic source is the
Peshitta (which was written hundreds of years after Jesus' lifetime, in
an Aramaic dialect which developed hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem
or Nazareth and did NOT belong to the Western branch of Aramaic
languages), then you're simply wrong.
In any case Jesus' name is actually spelled in the Peshitta as
Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayn (or Yod-Shin-Waw-`E), where the `Ayn consonant appears
at the END of the name.
> In Peshitta Bible, Jesus' name is written as "Eesho M'sheekha,"
> "eeshoa," not "Yeesho". in Aramaic
1MAN4ALL, will you please kindly condescend to tell me WHERE IS THE `Ayn
IN THESE TRANSCRIPTIONS???? I really can't even begin to have a
meaningful discussion about the above if you can't be bothered to tell me
where the fricken `Ayn is!!!
> Since people at that time-- depending on their dialect-must have
> pronounced "SHIN" and SIN" sounds interchangeably,
That's total nonsense. As I've told you before, the sin in Arabic `Isa
comes from early borrwing patterns from Aramaic and Hebrew into Arabic
(where both Hebrew/Aramaic samekh and shin became sin in Arabic). It has
nothing to do with confusion within Aramaic.
> According to Wikipedia,
You can't imagine how impressed I am (and presumably how impressed Gursey
is too) after we've done research in the original languages, when we hear
you quote from Wikipedia! Would you accept someone's opinions on Islam
who got all his information about it from Wikipedia articles?
> "There is very little evidence for the use of Hebrew during this period.
There's little evidence for the use of Hebrew as a native mother tongue
(though even that's not absolutely clear), but educated religious Jews
used it one way or another almost every day of their lives -- as Jesus
did, when he read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue (Isaiah 4:16).
> 4. The interchangeability of SHIN and SIN sounds in Hebrew goes back to
> thousands of years. [Hebrew had only one letter for both sounds].
You're completely confused. There were originally THREE phonemic sounds,
in Hebrew, but the Hebrew alphabet only had TWO different letters to write
these three sounds. Hebrew has the letter Samekh to write an "s" sound
and Shin to write an "sh" sound, and these letters are in fact not
interchangeable at all in Hebrew. "Sin" is not a letter at all in Hebrew,
but a third sound which did not have any separate letter of its own.
"Sin" isn't "interchangeable" with anything else either, but it was
written with letters that also wrote other sounds (since the Hebrew
alphabet didn't have enough letters so that each consonant sound could be
written unambiguously with a distinct letter). If you really want to
uderstand this complex situation, then you're going to have to do some
real research, and not merely skim the 1911(!) Britannica (with all its
OCR errors).
And as I've told you numerous times before, all this is unnecessary
anyway, since the change in sibilants between Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu` and
Arabic `Isa doesn't bother me at all -- it's a normal pattern of lingustic
adaptation found when when borrowing Aramaic and Hebrew words into early
Arabic (see above). However, moving `Ayn from the end of a word around to
the beginning of a word is not a normal loanword pattern (to say the least)!!
> 5. Can Modern Hebrew be used as a guide to guess 'correct'
> pronunciations of ancient Biblical names?
Whatever -- the way your question is phrased makes it totally pointless
and irrelevant. The modern pronunciations of Hebrew (not only the
Israeli pronunciation of Hebrew, but many others) are pieces of raw
evidence (among many other items) for the scientific linguistic
reconstruction of ancient Hebrew pronunciation. There's really very
little "guessing" involved, in the sense in which you mean "guessing".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew_language
Another Wikipedia article -- I'm so impressed. Have you ever tried
actually going to a library? If there's a seminary in your town, then the
seminary library is likely to contain copious works on acient Hebrew
linguistics.
> In WRITTEN Hebrew, the original name was "Yehoshua" (see Exodus 17:9)
> which was pronounced as "Yeshua," with an AYN at the end.
Ah, now you're finally acknowledging the existence of the `Ayn consonant!
Now we may finally start to get somewhere.
Unfortunately, you're still somewhat confused -- Y-H-W-Sh-W-` is the
original pre-exilic version of the name, and Y-Sh-W-` is the common
post-exilic version of the name (I'm not going to try to write down the
vowels of 500 B.C.). In Jesus' lifetime, contemporaries were named
Yeshu`, but when people read out Exodus 17:9 aloud in the synagogues, they
still gave it a pronunciation appropriate to the orthography Y-H-W-Sh-`
> However when the name was shortened to "Yeshu," the AYN was dropped
> and finally the name of Jesus appeared in the Jewish Talmud as "Yeshu
That's complete nonsense -- Yeshu` still had its `Ayn consonant, as you
can see for yourself by looking at the original Hebrew/Aramaic of the
old testament at the passages Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9,
3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 5:2, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7,
9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles
24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15.
In the Talmud (which was written down hundreds of years after Jesus'
lifetime), the `Ayn was omitted from Jesus' own name as a personal
insult, but the `Ayn letter was NOT omitted from the name of anybody
else who was named Yeshu`/Yeshua`.
> "Samaria had its distinctive Samaritan Aramaic, where the consonants
> 'he', 'heth' and '`ayin' all became pronounced as 'aleph'."
Whatever -- most of those consonants also lose their distinct
pronunciation in Maltese Arabic. Would you allow me to use the Maltese
Arabic pronunciation to cast doubts on old Qur'anic pronunciation??
P.S. The Samaritans hated the Jews.
> Iesous (EE-AY-SOOCE' as per Strong's Concordance).
I really don't give a fershlug what Strong's concordance says,
considering I work with the original Greek language materials -- and
your crude Berlitz phrasebook transcriptions really don't provide any
additional illumination onto the topic.
> Even if we assumes that the Greeks were writing SIGMA but pronouncing it
> with SH sound,
No, they weren't doing that -- for reasons which I explained in
mind-numbingly painful detail in a past post.
> we would still end up with something that would be far from exact.
It's quite inexact -- but as I've explained multiple times, it's the
CLOSEST POSSIBLE ANCIENT GREEK BORROWING of original Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu`
(while Arabic `Isa is NOT the closest possible early Arabic borrowing of
original Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu`).
> http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Mingana/Influence/
> "So far as the word 'Isa (the name given to Jesus in the Kur'an) is
> concerned, it was apparently in use before Muhammad,
That's nice -- I never insisted on personally blaming Muhammad for coming
up with `Isa all on his own. However that doesn't change the fact that
Arabic `Isa is still a quite corrupt and garbled form.
> Eisho or Eiso/Eisaw.
Unless you tell me where the `Ayn consonant is located in these forms, I
really have very little idea what you mean.
Sorry if I sound annoyed, but you seem to have learned very little from
past discussions.
Yusuf B Gursey
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> news:<1106808102....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> >...
>
> Greetings 1Man4All...
>
> I thought you were going to post this to SRI? Will we be duplicating
> our conversation, or have you decided to keep it in ARI? Anyway, you
> wrote a long post, but very little was relevant.
>
> > I am not exactly sure what you are implying.
>
> I was implying that "Eesa (ayn-yaa-seen-alif[maqsoora]) is closer to
> the Arabic rendering of Esau (ayn-yaa-seen-waw) than it is to the
> Aramaic name for Jesus sometimes pronounced Eesho
(yod-shin-vav-ayin)."
> I meant with regard to spelling. I was not promoting the Esau
polemic,
> but noting that if we're going to play this name game, it seems the
> Qur'anic Eesa is *far* closer to the Arabic rendering of Esau than it
> is the name of Jesus (however it may have been pronounced over the
> centuries). Proponents of this Eesho/Eesa argument (like Shibli
Zaman)
> seem to rest everything on phonetics. The Esau polemic has not only
> sound in its favor, but spelling as well.
but the alledged connection with Esau is pretty much shot down by the
finding in pre-islamic syria, in an area even then inhabited by arabs,
of the monestary attested as "Isaniya" (lack of diacritics because at
present I don't have the original work with me, and I assume Mingana
has not made an obvious blunder).
the OP is nevertheless wrong on the obvious counts I had repeated over
and over again and I need not repeat.
XpatriotgamesX
>From: "1MAN4ALL" fora...@hotmail.com
>Date: 1/27/2005 5:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1106874987.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
It's not that religious theocracies were more tolerant, it's just that the
communists had more advanced weaponry and better generals.
GabrilJb
From: "1MAN4ALL" <forah...@hotmail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 27 Jan 2005 06:46:39 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 27 2005 6:46 am
Subject: Re: Pronunciation of Jesus' Real Name
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> > It seems that 1Man4All ignored the point about spelling. I have, in
> the
> > past, voiced my disagreement with Shibli Zaman's Eesho=Eesa
argument.
> I
> > have also, for many years now, long abandoned the polemic that
> > Esau=Eesa (which, as many have gleefully pointed out, Ahmed Deedat
> > unwittingly endorsed). However, if we're going to get all bent out
of
> > shape on this issue, it seems plainly obvious that Eesa
> > (ayn-yaa-seen-alif[maqsoora]) is closer to the Arabic rendering of
> Esau
> > (ayn-yaa-seen-waw) than it is to the Aramaic name for Jesus
sometimes
> > pronounced Eesho (yod-shin-vav-ayin). The spelling of Eesho is
> > identical to the Hebrew Y'shua and the Arabic Yasuwa (i.e. what
Arab
> > Christians call Jesus).
> I am not exactly sure what you are implying. Does the Arabic name for
> Esau, which is "Eisoo" [AYN YA SIN WAW], sounds like "Eisa"? Yes, but
> what does that prove? I can just as easily compare Jesus' name in
Greek
> "Iesous" with his Greek name "Usoos", identified in Philo of Byblos'
> writings reported by Eusebius, and come to similar conclusions,
> whatever they may be.
>CORRECTION: "I can just as easily compare Jesus' name in Greek "Iesous"
>with ESAU's Greek name "Usoos", identified in Philo of Byblos' writings
The following article may throw some further light on the subject.
Its a pity I can't copy the actual name in aramaic shown in this article as it
would have been most interesting for all to see that written in Aramaic "Jesus"
looks like Mohammed in Arabic. Please open the link as given at the end.
Yeshua... Eeso... Iesous... Jesus
As odd as it may seem, the name Jesus is a relatively new invention, only a few
hundred years old, that was created by multiple translations and stylistic
changes to the original name.
The name of the one born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph about 2000 years ago
was written as in Aramaic. Most scholars agree that the common language of
the entire region was Aramaic and that Jesus spoke Aramaic and was most likely
named in Aramaic.
The transliteration of the Aramaic into English has been variously written as
Yeshu', Eesho' or Eshoo.
There were, and still are, many different, and often contradictory, dialects of
Aramaic, making it impossible to know for certain how his name was actually
pronounced 2000 years ago.
That same name would be written as in Hebrew and is transliterated into
English as Yeshua, which is a Hebrew contraction for the name Yehoshua which
means Yah is salvation or Yah saves.
Many Biblical references, such as Young's Analytical Concordance, have
concluded that his name was Yeshua.
The really odd changes to his name all began with translation into non-Semitic
languages.
When the name Yeshu' was translated into Greek, the translators were first
faced with the task of deciding whether they should translate the name
phonetically to try to keep the sound the same, or whether they should
translate the name according to its meaning.
They chose to use the phonetic approach so that the sound of the name would be
preserved, even though the meaning of the name would be lost in the phonetic
translation.
Unfortunately, the Greek language lacks some of the sounds used in Aramaic. And
to further complicate the issue, all Greek masculine names must end with the
letter "s".
So, without the proper sounds and forced to add the "s" to the end of the name,
the best that the Greek translators could do was translate the name as which
is pronounced something like "ee-ay-soos". Still, that's pretty close to the
original name, except for the letter "s" that was added at the end.
Then, as the books of the bible began to gain wider circulation, the name was
again translated, this time from Greek into Latin. In the official Catholic
bible version called the Vulgate, the name was established in Latin as "Iesus".
In Latin the letter "I" has a "Y" sound, so the name is pronounced something
like "ye-soos", which is a pretty good approximation to the original name,
except for the "s" at the end.
That name was in common usage for many centuries until the Europeans began
making a very stylized version of the letter "I". The new version of the letter
"I" gradually acquired a sound of it's own and over time became an entirely new
letter, the letter "J" with it's current "J" sound. And, along the way, the
long "u" sound of "oo" was lost and it became a short "u".
So, as the newly invented printing press churned out bibles, the Latin version
of the name was written as "Jesus" and the distorted English pronunciation as
we know it today was gradually adopted.
Around the year 1611, the King James version of the New Testament had fully
adopted the spelling "Jesus" and popularized the pronunciation that we still
are using today.
Thus, the name Yeshu' was gradually changed to the name Jesus.... quite a
totally different sounding name.
Fortunately, it seems that the pronunciation of the words in our prayers is
much less important that the heartfelt intent of our prayers.
And thereby all true seekers receive the same results whether they have learned
to call on the scared name of Jesus or Eeso or Yeshu' or Iesous.
That is to say, the pronunciation of the name is really not very important, but
rather it is our intent, purpose and faith that truly matter.
In Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic the ancient root of the word for "name" is s-m,
and while it does certainly mean "name" it also means much more. The s-m of
something is that by which it is known, it is that which makes something
different in a way that it can be distinguished from something else, it can
mean light or sound or vibration, it is the very essence of a thing.
So, to call upon someone's "shem" is not simply to call upon the sound of their
name, but it means to call upon their very essence... which is far beyond the
mere utterance of a name.
with love,
wahiduddin
Aramaic Audio Recordings:
http://www.v-a.com/bible/aramaic-jesus.html ... eashoa in Aramaic
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
news:<1106890261.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
> but the alledged connection with Esau is pretty much shot
> down by the finding in pre-islamic syria, in an area even
> then inhabited by arabs, of the monestary attested as
> "Isaniya" (lack of diacritics because at present I don't
> have the original work with me, and I assume Mingana
> has not made an obvious blunder).
Pax Vobis Yusuf!
Again, I was not actually advocating the Esau polemic (and even said so
in previous posts). I was simply stating that if we're going to play
this sound game, the Esau polemic has sound, as well as spelling on its
side. As for whether or not Eesa is a pre-Islamic name for Jesus, I
would imagine every single name in the Qur'an for Biblical characters
is pre-Islamic, as each story seems borne out of pre-Islamic
theological speculation and/or dispute regarding these figures.
...
Shaykh al-Ilhaad, Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Mushrik al-Amriki
AnonMoos
> The following article may throw some further light on the subject.
> Its a pity I can't copy the actual name in aramaic shown in this
> article as it would have been most interesting for all to see that
> written in Aramaic "Jesus" looks like Mohammed in Arabic. Please
> open the link as given at the end.
I can't see any Aramaic writing on that page, but the resemblance is
extremely superficial at best, as you can see by going to the URL
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/#shield-trinity (click on the image
links of the Arabic-language "Shield of the Trinity" diagram in order
to see the Aramaic text larger in size than in the thumbnail graphic).
In Aramaic, the third and fourth letters of Jesus' name don't even
join together, and the second letter of Jesus' name in Aramaic has its
blobby thing on a short vertical stem -- while the Arabic letter Haa,
which is the second letter of Muhammad's name in Arabic, has absolutely
nothing vertical about it anywhere.
> Yeshua... Eeso... Iesous... Jesus As odd as it may seem, the name
> Jesus is a relatively new invention, only a few hundred years old,
I really have no idea what this guy is talking about -- the Greek
transcription IESOUS (nominative case), IESOUN (accusative), IESOU
(oblique cases) of the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshu` occurred in the
Greek translation of the book of Ecclesiasticus or Jesus Son of
Sirach, which was written over a century before Jesus of Nazareth was
even born. Similarly, in the Septuagint Greek translation of 1
Chronicles 24:11 (which was written well over a century before Jesus'
brith), the oblique case form IESOU (iota-eta-sigma-omicron-upsilon)
occurs, as you can see for yourself at
http://septuagint.org/LXX/1Chronicles/1Chronicles24.html (if you know
how to read it). And there were a dozen people named Iesous in
Josephus' writings of the late 1st. century A.D. in the Greek language
(none having any known connection with Christianity except Jesus of
Nazareth himself, as far as I'm aware).
"Jesus" (or in the original Roman spelling, IESVS) was the very
natural Latin-language adaptation of Greek Iesous.
> all Greek masculine names must end with the letter "s".
That's complete and utter nonsense! What is perfectly true is that if
the name of Jesus were to be given separate case forms in the Greek
language (Nominative, acccusative, genitive, dative etc.) then
something had to be added onto the end of the name in some case forms.
> The transliteration of the Aramaic into English has been variously
> written as Yeshu', Eesho'
Notice how he transcribes the `Ayin consonant as being at the END of
the word? That's a very good example for 1MAN4ALL, as well as
indicating that Aramaic doesn't really provide too much support for
the Qur'anic Arabic form `Isa (which has the `Ayn at the beginning).
1MAN4ALL
AnonMoos wrote:
> gabr...@aol.com (GabrilJb) wrote:
>
> > The following article may throw some further light on the subject.
> > Its a pity I can't copy the actual name in aramaic shown in this
> > article as it would have been most interesting for all to see that
> > written in Aramaic "Jesus" looks like Mohammed in Arabic. Please
> > open the link as given at the end.
>
> I can't see any Aramaic writing on that page, but the resemblance is
> extremely superficial at best, as you can see by going to the URL
> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/#shield-trinity (click on the image
> links of the Arabic-language "Shield of the Trinity" diagram in order
> to see the Aramaic text larger in size than in the thumbnail
graphic).
Isn't that your own web site? Please allow me couple of days to answer
you and Khinzeer; but judging from your responses so far, it seems that
the two of you didn't read my original post carefully, which rebuts
most of your assertions already. So let me give you another chance to
read and repost your comments. Otherwise, you two are in great danger
of loosing this debate:-)
Yusuf B Gursey
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> news:<1106890261.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > but the alledged connection with Esau is pretty much shot
> > down by the finding in pre-islamic syria, in an area even
> > then inhabited by arabs, of the monestary attested as
> > "Isaniya" (lack of diacritics because at present I don't
> > have the original work with me, and I assume Mingana
> > has not made an obvious blunder).
>
> Pax Vobis Yusuf!
>
> Again, I was not actually advocating the Esau polemic (and even said
so
> in previous posts). I was simply stating that if we're going to play
> this sound game, the Esau polemic has sound, as well as spelling on
its
the question is whether this resemblence is significant or not.
> side. As for whether or not Eesa is a pre-Islamic name for Jesus, I
> would imagine every single name in the Qur'an for Biblical characters
> is pre-Islamic, as each story seems borne out of pre-Islamic
there are some claims that some are due to later misreadings or
introduced in a particular form by Muhammad himself.
> theological speculation and/or dispute regarding these figures.
or simply the form that was common among a certain group of arabs.
the "Esau theory" assumes that Muhammad mistook the name from polemical
jewish sources, but the attestation in a pre-islamic arab christian
context refutes this.
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
news:<1106942697.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>
> Please allow me couple of days to answer you and Khinzeer;
> but judging from your responses so far, it seems that
> the two of you didn't read my original post carefully, which
> rebuts most of your assertions already. So let me give you
> another chance to read and repost your comments.
Well, I look forward to that. However, please be clear with what your
argument is. Are you arguing that Eesa *IS* Jesus' real name, or that
Eesa *SOUNDS LIKE* Jesus' real name? Also, please do take into account
the employment of the ayn this time. You might wish to answer a
question: do you believe that the ayn sounds the same has a hireq (or
yod with hireq) or even an alif? To understand (or totally miss) the
reason I ask this question, you might consider a close model question
as an analogy: do you believe kaaf and qaaf produce the same phoneme?
Finally, how come you didn't start the thread in SRI?
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
>
> I was simply stating that if we're going to play
> this sound game, the Esau polemic has sound, as well
>
> the question is whether this resemblence is significant or not.
I do not believe the resemblance is terribly significant with regard to
question of Jesus' "real name".
Yusuf B Gursey
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
AnonMoos
> You might wish to answer a question: do you believe that the ayn
> sounds the same has a hireq (or yod with hireq) or even an alif?
1MAN4ALL will have no idea what a Hireq diacritic or vowel is (I'm not
sure he'd know what a Kasra is...).
> Finally, how come you didn't start the thread in SRI?
I presume it was to accomodate me, since I don't normally read the
group soc.religion.islam. (It also has the advantage of not having to
wait for moderation approval of every message...)
--
Murderers are not Martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
Yusuf B Gursey
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
Ok. but it might have had (though shown to the contrary) of the origin
of the form 3i:sa"
GabrilJb
From: AnonMoos anon...@io.com
>Date: 28/01/2005 18:24 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <41FA8348...@io.com>
>
>gabr...@aol.com (GabrilJb) wrote:
>
>> The following article may throw some further light on the subject.
>> Its a pity I can't copy the actual name in aramaic shown in this
>> article as it would have been most interesting for all to see that
>> written in Aramaic "Jesus" looks like Mohammed in Arabic. Please
>> open the link as given at the end.
>
>I can't see any Aramaic writing on that page,
Try the following link, it has Jesus written in Aramaic. Would be interesting
to hear your comments.
wahiduddin.net/words/jesus.htm
The Chozen Few
I've often pointed out here myself that dogmatic atheism can be and has been
at least as pernicious as dogmatic theism. For that reason, unlike you, I
subscribe to neither brand of dogmatism.
The Chozen Few
"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message
news:41F97AFF...@io.com...
> Spanish Jesus is actually pronounced with a "rough" h at the beginning
> of the first syllable, and an "s" sound (NOT a "z"!) at the beginning of
> the second syllable. Ancient Greek Zeus was pronounced Dzeh-oos,
> combined into one syllable. In any case, the "s" at the end of "Jesus"
> is a Greek and Latin nominative singular case ending, which has nothing
> to do with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic pronounciations of the name.
Hey-Zeus the Tiajuana donkey pronounced his name as I've indicated, or at
least I'm sure he would've if he'd been able to speak.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/5c8c9109ef1aec6b?dmode=source
AnonMoos
>>> The following article may throw some further light on the subject.
>>> Its a pity I can't copy the actual name in aramaic shown in this
>>> article as it would have been most interesting for all to see that
>>> written in Aramaic "Jesus" looks like Mohammed in Arabic. Please
>>> open the link as given at the end.
>> I can't see any Aramaic writing on that page,
> Try the following link, it has Jesus written in Aramaic.
> http://wahiduddin.net/words/jesus.htm
That's extremely small, and is not written in the earliest version of
the Syriac manuscript alphabet. Go to
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm to see a large
image of the name of Jesus in the earliest Christian Syriac alphabet.
As I said, any resemblance is rather superficial at best -- since in
Aramaic, the third and fourth letters of Jesus' name don't even join
together, and the second letter of Jesus' name in Aramaic has its
blobby thing on a short vertical stem -- while the Arabic letter Haa,
which is the second letter of Muhammad's name in Arabic, has absolutely
nothing vertical about it anywhere.
--
1MAN4ALL
> > Try the following link, it has Jesus written in Aramaic.
> > http://wahiduddin.net/words/jesus.htm
>
> That's extremely small, and is not written in the earliest version of
> the Syriac manuscript alphabet. Go to
> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm to see a large
> image of the name of Jesus in the earliest Christian Syriac alphabet.
> As I said, any resemblance is rather superficial at best -- since in
> Aramaic, the third and fourth letters of Jesus' name don't even join
> together, and the second letter of Jesus' name in Aramaic has its
> blobby thing on a short vertical stem -- while the Arabic letter Haa,
> which is the second letter of Muhammad's name in Arabic, has
absolutely
> nothing vertical about it anywhere.
The problem that I am having in discussing this issue with you that you
and Khinzeer are not reading my original post, or at least have not
addressed the issues that I had raised, and insist on projecting your
own preconceptions, which I have already rebutted. [I can't blame
Khinzeer, because, after all, khanazeer are not supposed to be as
intelligent as ashraf al-makhluqat, bani-nooh insaan:-)] What is also
amusing is that the only reference that you have provided is from your
own web site! If you don't like Wikipidia, I suggest that you use
Encyclopedia Britannica or some other neutral source, but a credible
source you must.
I would like to make the following points:
1. Jesus never had a "Hebrew" name. Jesus' name may have been derived
from the Hebrew name "Yehoshua"--just as many modern Christian
names are today--but because Aramaic was the language of Jews from as
early as the 6th century BC, the pronunciation of Jesus' name has to
be studied in the context of that language. Why did the Aramaic
speaking started calling Jesus Eshoa/Eishaw when, according to you, his
name was Yeshua?
2. Your point about Tiberian (Masoretic) Hebrew is totally invalid from
two perspectives.
A). Tiberian Hebrew was an 8th Century AD attempt by Masoretic scholars
at Tiberias to establish/rediscover pronunciations of ancient forms of
Hebrew, not of Aramaic. Even during Jesus' time, Targums (Aramaic
translations of Old Testament) were used, and it is assumed that Hebrew
continued to be used by a very small group of Jewish priests. And that
is why at the alleged crucifixion, Jesus used the Aramaic expression
"Eli, Eli, Lama, Sabachthani," a translation of Psalms 22:1-2). IT
IS ONLY FROM THE 12TH CENTURY AD ONWARDS, THAT JESUS NAME IN HEBREW IS
IDENTIFIED AS YESHU (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu )
B). The work on Talmud started in 2nd Century AD and although several
people with the name Yeshu are mentioned, it has been a problem linking
any one of these to Jesus. Eventually, many centuries later, Jesus'
name appears in Talmud (before the Maseretic texts were written) as
"Yeshu ha-Notzri" (i.e. Jesus of Nazareth"). The letter AYN was
dropped from the spelling. There are several theories as to why that
may have been the case, all ASSUMING that Yeshu was derived from
"Yehoshua," that first Jews dropped HA and then AYN to show their
disrespect. Another theory is that "Yeshua" means "Saved" and since
Jesus' couldn't save himself (according to Jewish/Christian belief),
his name was shortened to Yeshu (without the AYN). A third possible
reason, as I had suggested earlier, is that it was due to Samaritan
Aramaic influence. As Wikipedia Encyclopedia suggests, "Samaria had
its distinctive Samaritan Aramaic, where the consonants 'he', 'heth'
and '`ayin' all became pronounced as 'aleph'."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language.
Most likely, the reason it was 'dropped' was because it wasn't
there in the first place! Yeshu without the AYN means that the name was
pronounced as Yeesho [Esho in Aramaic], not Yeshoo.
SO IF AYN WAS IN INTRINSIC PART OF JESUS' NAME, AS YOU KEEP CLAIMING,
WHY WOULD JEWS DROP THE FINAL AYN ? It is this question which you keep
failing to answer. It has also been claimed that none of the people
called "Yeshu" mentioned in Talmud, even Yeshu ha-Notzri, is
Jesus. "Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, author of a prominent new Talmud
commentary, hold that most or all mentions of Yeshu are probably not to
the Christian Jesus." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
3. You are presenting a fallacious argument by assuming that every
letter of Aramaic corresponds to some letter in Arabic, so if the
spellings don't match, there is a problem. Well, first of all,
Aramaic has 22 letters and Arabic has 28, so it's likely that some
spellings would be different in the two languages. Secondly, there are
alternative spellings for some words in Arabic, and a comparison of
spelling ends up proving nothing. Finally, Arabic has lot more
variations of root words and names than Hebrew and Aramaic. For
example, people whose name is Ahmad are often called Hamada, which
sounds totally different but is actually a derivative of the same name.
Hamada also 'sounds' very much like other Arabic names, such as
Hamad, Hamid, Hameed etc. And even Muhammad is closely related to
Ahmad. All this is very confusing for non-Arabic speakers but no big
deal for Arabs.
4. GabrilJB had provided a very useful link where you can actually hear
the Aramaic name of Jesus being pronounced in variety of different ways
by Aramaic-speaking Christians:
http://www.v-a.com/bible/aramaic-jesus.html ... eashoa in Aramaic
http://www.beith-morounoye.org/special/yeshu.wma ... Yeshu' in Aramaic
http://www.assyrianlanguage.com/imgf/jesus.au ... eesho in Aramaic
So if even Aramaic-speaking Christians are calling Jesus Eisha or
Eishaw [that's what it sounds like] and as I have already proved,
using the Bible and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a references
that SHIN and SIN sounds were often interchangeable, depending on
one's dialect, and knowing also that Samaritans often replaced AYN
with Alif, I don't see what's your problem is with Muslims using
Easa?
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
>
> 1. Jesus never had a "Hebrew" name.
What is this based on? The fact that Hebrew was not his first language?
All over the world, for millennia, there have been Jews who did not
speak Hebrew as their first language, yet nonetheless had Hebrew names.
So, scratching this, I ask you what your assumption is based on.
> because Aramaic was the language of Jews from as
> early as the 6th century BC, the pronunciation of
> Jesus' name has to be studied in the context of
> that language.
Fine, so please tell us how the name was pronounced in the first
century. The only way I can think of that can get us close to reaching
an answer is seeing how the text was transliterated into European
languages. Both the Septuagint and the NT gives us the impression that
the name was pronounced very similar to the way it is pronounced today.
> Why did the Aramaic speaking started calling Jesus
> Eshoa/Eishaw when, according to you, his
> name was Yeshua?
Because languages and pronunciations evolve. Furthermore, had you
actually paid attention to my post, you would have realized that some
Aramaic speaking Christians, including those who put forth
http://peshitta.org , also pronounced his name as Yeshua. Also, maybe
we should focus on Jewish Aramaic, not later forms of Christian
Aramaic.
> IT IS ONLY FROM THE 12TH CENTURY AD ONWARDS,
> THAT JESUS NAME IN HEBREW IS
> IDENTIFIED AS YESHU
> (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu )
Wikipedia is a terrible source. It is simply copy and paste of claims
found on the net. Did you ever hear about the controversy when they
quoted noneother than Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullah? See as follows:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wikipedia+abdul-khinzeer
Nonetheless, had you read my post, you would know this claim is false.
The Septuagint and the NT shows us that the pronunciation of
yod-shin-vav-ayn was actually pretty close to the way it is now. The
only discrepancy seems to be the rendering of the shin as an 's'
phoneme, which is very forgivable.
> There are several theories as to why that
> may have been the case, all ASSUMING that
> Yeshu was derived from "Yehoshua," that first
> Jews dropped HA and then AYN to show their
> disrespect.
The dropping of the ayn might have meant to be disrespectful (maybe!),
but the heh? Where did you get this? Copy.and.paste.from.the.netpedia
again? The yod-shin-vav-ayn construction is found in the name of many
Jews in both the TaNaKh and the "sefareem chitsoneem" (i.e. apocryphal
works, like Ben Sirach). It is not an insulting name. If we're just
going to make assumptions, let's assume it might be a masculine version
of yod-shin-vav-ayn-heh (a la B'reshit 49, the furqan of the Targum of
Unqelos).
> Most likely, the reason it was 'dropped' was because it
> wasn't there in the first place!
Um, wrong. Again, yod-shin-vav-ayn is found in the TaNaKh, and is even
found in the Peshitta you call to witness. This is a ridiculous theory.
> Yeshu without the AYN means that the name was
> pronounced as Yeesho [Esho in Aramaic], not Yeshoo.
What is this based on? The difference between "oo" and "o" at the end
is merely a difference between cholam and a shuruq, and either sound is
possible with a vav/waw. As for "ye" vs. "yee", if you are treating the
yod as a consonant, in order to have it followed by a long "ee" sound
you would need another yod (heereyq). Since you don't understand the
difference, think of the found the Arabic kasra makes under say a baa
("bi"), and then think of the sound you get with baa-yaa and a kasraa
("bee").
> 3. You are presenting a fallacious argument by assuming
> that every letter of Aramaic corresponds to some letter
> in Arabic, so if the spellings don't match, there is a
> problem.
But there is a problem. It would be like if a name in one language
started with a qof, and then another name in another language started
with a kaf. These are two drastically different consonants, even if
they produce the same phoneme to a speaker of a Western European
language like English (admittedly, the difference between 'K' and 'Q'
seems to be lost an Ashkenazeem today as well). The ayn is very, very
important.
> Well, first of all, Aramaic has 22 letters and Arabic
> has 28, so it's likely that some spellings would be
> different in the two languages.
Agreed, and thus it is acceptable when a chet is rendered as a Haa here
and a khaa there. So too, it is okay when the samekh becomes a seen.
The difference between a yaa and an ayn are rather dramatic however.
> people whose name is Ahmad are often called Hamada,
Ummm, 1Man, this is a terrible example in light of the fact that these
two names have the same triliteral root.
Regardless, it seem this discussion has sunk yet again into "might have
beens". I thought you were going to positively assert that "Eesa" was
the correct pronunciation, and then attempt to demonstrate such. Is if
possible that the name *evolved* over time into the Qur'anic version?
Of course, in light of the fact that the name has evolved into many
variants all over the world, and the fact that the name was probably
used by some variant of Christian living in the time and area the
Qur'an was first constructed in. But this is wholly different from
claiming that the Qur'anic version is the correct pronunciation!
AnonMoos
>AnonMoos wrote:
>> I've just uploaded to the web a page
>> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm which contains
>> specific information on the most accurate pronunciations of the name
>> of Jesus in certain Semitic languages. In doing this, it shows the
>> name of Jesus in the earliest Christian or manuscript version of the
>> Syriac alphabet (which none of the other pages referenced in the
>> previous discussion has done). I've placed this graphic on a separate
>> page, so that 1MAN4ALL can view it even if he doesn't want to load my
>> main web-page, or fears ideological contamination from viewing the
>> "Shield of the Trinity" diagram, etc. This diagram is free of the
>> limitations of layout, fonts etc. which constrain Usenet messages, so
>> that I have been able to use the original alphabets, and all
>> appropriate phonetic transcription symbols. If you don't understand
>> the phonetic transcription symbols in the diagram, then it would
>> probably be better to avoid making dogmatic pronouncements on
>> linguistic matters concerning the name of Jesus.
> The problem that I am having in discussing this issue with you that
> you and Khinzeer are not reading my original post,
What's your evidence for that? Did you look at my long message
URL:<news:41F99A52...@io.com> or
http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=41F99A52.5AB6DEE8%40io.com ?
Why didn't you reply directly to that message?
> What is also amusing is that the only reference that you have
> provided is from your own web site!
Whatever -- I've provided several references to scholarly sources in
the past (including to the big multi-volume Encyclopedia of Islam).
However, the actual purpose of my page
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm is to lay out
various orthographies of the name of Jesus in the original alphabets,
and to be able to use proper phonetic transcription symbols (something
which is impossible to do within the common limitations imposed on
Usenet messages) -- and not to assemble a bibliography. I could do
that in an ordinary Usenet message (if I felt there was any necessity).
Did you look at the reversed question-mark-like symbol on the
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm page, 1MAN4ALL?
The reversed question-mark-like symbol is extremely important!
> If you don't like Wikipidia, I suggest that you use Encyclopedia
> Britannica or some other neutral source, but a credible source you
> must.
You really don't seem to have quite grasped yet that when debating a
highly abstruse point in ancient linguistics, then a generalized
source (like a general-purpose encyclopedia) will probably not be
adequate to the purpose. You'll need to access specialized scholarly
sources in order to be able to meaningfully participate in the
discussion -- so just doing your own speculative extrapolating based
on one or two out-of-context sentences you found in a general overview
article on Wikipedia ain't gonna cut it. But I'll give you this much --
at least you aren't citing web-pages authored by "Jesus-Tetragrammaton"
crackpot cultsts (as you were several months ago!).
> 1. Jesus never had a "Hebrew" name.
That's complete and utter nonsense. As I said in my other message,
educated religious Jews living in Judea or Galilee during the 1st
century A.D. would have probably used the Hebrew language in one way
or another almost every day of their lives -- and when they read from
scrolls of Ezra-Nehemiah or Chronicles (just as Jesus read from the
Isaiah scroll in the synagogue in Luke 4:16), then they would have
read out the Old Testament name Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin in the same way as
the contemporary name Yeshu` was pronounced in the Aramaic of the
period. (The sound-system of Hebrew had basically coincided with that
of contemporary Aramaic.) The name Yeshu` (yod-shin-waw-`ayin)
appears in the passages Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9,
3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 5:2, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7,
9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles
24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15. Of course, chapter 5 of the book of
Ezra is written in the Aramaic language, so that where Yeshu` appears
in Ezra 5:2 it's already adapted to Aramaic (though a late Persian
"Official" Aramaic, instead of 1st. century A.D. Galilean or Judean
Aramaic).
> because Aramaic was the language of Jews from as early as the 6th
> century BC,
not really of the Jews living in Judea... (Look at 2 Kings 19:26 for
an earlier reference.)
> the pronunciation of Jesus' name has to be studied in the context of
> that language.
Certainly Aramaic is _relevant_ to the consideration of how Jesus'
name was pronounced in the first century A.D., but that doesn't mean
that ONLY Aramaic sources can be considered. Aramaic sources which
are far-removed in both time and place from Jesus life (as is the case
with all Syriac-language sources) must be treated with caution, and
many non-Aramaic sources are in fact relevant to conducting a scientific
linguistic historical reconstruction.
> Why did the Aramaic speaking started calling Jesus Eshoa/Eishaw
I really have no idea whether the above is true or false, when you
don't tell me WHERE THE FRICKEN `Ayn CONSONANT is in these forms!!!
> when, according to you, his name was Yeshua?
Actually, during his lifetime, it was pronouced Yeshu` . The addition
of the little short "a" vowel (as in Yeshua` WITH `Ayn CONSONANT!)
happened later.
> 2. Your point about Tiberian (Masoretic) Hebrew is totally invalid from
> two perspectives.
Whatever; on the page http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm
I didn't really make any "point" about Tiberian Hebrew -- I just noted
that Yeshua` was the pronunciation used when a full vowel orthography
for Hebrew was established (long after Jesus' lifetime), while the
pronunciation used in Jesus' lifetime would have been Yeshu` .
> attempt by Masoretic scholars at Tiberias to establish/rediscover
> pronunciations
You're already wrong -- it was an attempt to PRESERVE the formal
recitation pronunciation used in their day. They were not speculative
theorizers in any way.
> IT IS ONLY FROM THE 12TH CENTURY AD ONWARDS, THAT JESUS NAME IN
> HEBREW IS IDENTIFIED AS YESHU (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
Mannie, you can't even read the articles that you yourself select --
the name Yod-Shin-Waw was in fact used in the 6th century A.D. Talmud,
as it says at the link.
Of course this was merely a deliberate distortion of the name
Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin, which existed already almost a thousand years
before, as attested in the Old Testament.
> There are several theories as to why the letter AYN was dropped from
> the spelling.
And they're all totally and completely irrelevant to the present
discussion, since the `Ayn was dropped only when referring to Jesus
personally (and not to any of the other individuals named Yeshu` with
`Ayn), and this first occurred in the Talmud, which was written down
many centuries after Jesus' death.
> Most likely, the reason it was 'dropped' was because it wasn't there
> in the first place! Yeshu without the AYN
Then why does the `Ayn consonant (or `E consonant, as it's called in
that language) appear in the Peshitta which you're so fond of citing??
Go to http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm , and look
at the line of the diagram of Aramaic; the leftmost symbol on that line
(looking like scissors cutting through cloth) is the letter `E (`Ayn).
Why does that Aramaic `Ayn consonant in the name of Jesus even exist
at all, according to your theory?? Please do explain!!
> So if ayn was in intrinsic part of Jesus' name, as you keep claiming,
> why would Jews drop the final ayn ?
To insult Jesus. They only dropped it in Jesus' name, and not that of
other people given the Biblical name Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin. In any case,
all writings bearing the name Yod-Shin-Waw were written many centuries
after Jesus' lifetime.
> It has also been claimed that none of the people called "Yeshu"
> mentioned in Talmud, even Yeshu ha-Notzri, is Jesus.
I don't really feel like getting into abstruse Talmudic exegesis, when
neither you nor I is competent to conduct such a debate -- and all
this is really irrelevant to what the pronunciation of Jesus' name
would have been in the 1st century A.D. in any case...
> 3. You are presenting a fallacious argument by assuming that every
> letter of Aramaic corresponds to some letter in Arabic, so if the
> spellings don't match, there is a problem.
Have you been reading anything I wrote??? I've explained multiple
times why the difference of "sh" in Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu` vs. the "s"
in Arabic-language Yasu` or `Isa is in fact NOT a problem at all!
However, in Yeshu` the `Ayn consonant is at the END of the name, while
in `Isa it's at the BEGINNING of the name, and that is indeed a very
major problem...
> Well, first of all, Aramaic has 22 letters and Arabic has 28, so
> it's likely that some spellings would be different in the two
> languages.
That's nice -- Arabic has six sounds which Aramaic didn't have (at
least as phonemes). However `Ayn is NOT in fact one of those six
sounds, which makes the difference in alphabet size quite irrelevant.
> For example, people whose name is Ahmad are often called Hamada,
> which sounds totally different but is actually a derivative of the
> same name.
That's nice -- then please name to me one regular or semi-regular
process of Arabic derivation which moves a root consonant around from
third position to first position. If you can't, then your remark is
quite irrelevant.
> 4. GabrilJB had provided a very useful link where you can actually
> hear the Aramaic name of Jesus being pronounced in variety of
> different ways by Aramaic-speaking Christians:
The pronunciations which current Araimaic-speakers use 1950 years
after Jesus' lifetime. I place greater trust in the results of the
process of scientific linguistic reconstruction, which examines ALL
the available evidence to arrive at a historical conclusion which
would be directly relevant for the first century A.D.
> http://www.v-a.com/bible/aramaic-jesus.html ... eashoa in Aramaic
> http://www.assyrianlanguage.com/imgf/jesus.au ... eesho in Aramaic
> http://www.beith-morounoye.org/special/yeshu.wma ... Yeshu' in Aramaic
Is that an `Ayn consonant there at the end? ;-)
> I have already proved, using the Bible and the 1911 Encyclopedia
> Britannica as a references that SHIN and SIN sounds were often
> interchangeable, depending on one's dialect
You've "proved" absolutely nothing of the sort. You don't even
properly understand what it is you want to try to "prove". (See
detailed explanations in my previous posts.)
> and knowing also that Samaritans often replaced AYN with Alif,
Just like the Maltese Arabs do also -- and how relevant is that to
the pronunciation of classical Qur'anic Arabic??
> I don't see what's your problem is with Muslims using Easa?
I don't have any problems with Muslims using `Isa -- as long as they
don't try to claim that it's the authentic original pronunciation of
the name of Jesus (instead of being a highly distorted and corrupted
pronunciation, which it in fact is).
I'm actually more tolerant than you are -- I have no objections to
Muslims using `Isa, but I imagine you would have many objections to
Christians using "Mahomet" or "Mahound".
hurrah
1Man4All:
> why would Jews drop the final ayn ?
Anon:
> To insult Jesus. They only dropped it in Jesus' name, and not
> that of
> other people given the Biblical name Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin. In
> any case,
> all writings bearing the name Yod-Shin-Waw were written many
> centuries
> after Jesus' lifetime.
1Man4All:
>> I don't see what's your problem is with Muslims using Easa?
Anon:
> I don't have any problems with Muslims using `Isa -- as long
> as they
> don't try to claim that it's the authentic original
> pronunciation of
> the name of Jesus (instead of being a highly distorted and
> corrupted
> pronunciation, which it in fact is).
> I'm actually more tolerant than you are -- I have no
> objections to
> Muslims using `Isa, but I imagine you would have many
> objections to
> Christians using "Mahomet" or "Mahound".
Hmmm...your seem to be as tolerant as those you accuse of
insulting Jesus (a.s) a few lines above. I am sure that your
vitriolic attacks against the Prophet (a.s.w.s) don`t make your
case true either.
Meaning of MAHOUND
Pronunciation: mu'hawnd
WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [n] the Arab prophet who founded Islam (570-632)
Synonyms: Mahomet, Mohammed, Muhammad
See Also: prophet
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Ma`hound\, n.
A contemptuous name for Mohammed; hence, an evil spirit; a
devil. [Obs.]
Who's this, my mahound cousin ? --Beau. & Fl.
As for your so called tolerance, here`s a pretty historical lesson for
you:
Tolerance In Islam By Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and
as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant. This is
turning the tables with a vengeance when one remembers various facts:
One remembers that not a Muslim is left alive in Spain or Sicily or
Apulia. One remembers that not a Muslim was left alive and not a
mosque left standing in Greece after the great rebellion in l821. One
remembers how the Muslims of the Balkan peninsula, once the majority,
have been systematically reduced with the approval of the whole of
Europe, how the Christian under Muslim rule have in recent times been
urged on to rebel and massacre the Muslims, and how reprisals by the
latter have been condemned as quite uncalled for.
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas,
Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the
Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged
in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of
Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the
Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to
Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their
descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among
themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a
refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the
eighteenth century, did not know and did not Care to know, what the
Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views
of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was
already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the
Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which
allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to
their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have
made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.
The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even
idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as
worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of
the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous
idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew
what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If
Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in
those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and
heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not
have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I
quote a learned French author:
"Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel,
and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they
were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond.
It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the
Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of
Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols.
"A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the "god" of the
Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belabored and
abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it
on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by
beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a
pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never
were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the
Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their
gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles
entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched
and had "Muhammad" and all their Gods broken with iron hammers."
That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe
used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file
of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of
those days. Christendom regarded the outside world as damned
eternally, and Islam did not. There were good and tender-hearted men
in Christendom who thought it sad that any people should be damned
eternally, and wished to save them by the only way they knew -
conversion to the Christian faith.
It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious
law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims
fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and
other evidences of the highest culture. Therefore the difference
evident in that anecdote is not of manners only but of religion. Of
old, tolerance had existed here and there in the world, among
enlightened individuals; but those individuals had always been against
the prevalent religion. Tolerance was regarded of un-religious, if not
irreligious. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as
an essential part of religion.
For the Muslims, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are but three forms
of one religion, which, in its original purity, was the religion of
Abraham: Al-Islam, that perfect Self-Surrender to the Will of God,
which is the basis of Theocracy. The Jews, in their religion, after
Moses, limited God's mercy to their chosen nation and thought of His
kingdom as the dominion of their race.
Even Christ himself, as several of his sayings show, declared that he
was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and seemed to
regard his mission as to the Hebrews only; and it was only after a
special vision vouchsafed to St. Peter that his followers in after
days considered themselves authorized to preach the Gospel to the
Gentiles. The Christians limited God's mercy to those who believed
certain dogmas. Every one who failed to hold the dogmas was an outcast
or a miscreant, to be persecuted for his or her soul's good. In Islam
only is manifest the real nature of the Kingdom of God.
The two verses (2:255-256) of the Qur'an are supplementary. Where
there is that realization of the majesty and dominion of Allah (SWT),
there is no compulsion in religion. Men choose their path - allegiance
or opposition - and it is sufficient punishment for those who oppose
that they draw further and further away from the light of truth.
What Muslims do not generally consider is that this law applies to our
own community just as much as to the folk outside, the laws of Allah
being universal; and that intolerance of Muslims for other men's
opinions and beliefs is evidence that they themselves have, at the
moment, forgotten the vision of the majesty and mercy of Allah which
the Qur'an presents to them.
In the Qur'an I find two meanings (of a Kafir), which become one the
moment that we try to realize the divine standpoint. The Kafir in the
first place, is not the follower of any religion. He is the opponent
of Allah's benevolent will and purpose for mankind - therefore the
disbeliever in the truth of all religions, the disbeliever in all
Scriptures as of divine revelation, the disbeliever to the point of
active opposition in all the Prophets (pbut) whom the Muslims are
bidden to regard, without distinction, as messengers of Allah.
The Qur'an repeatedly claims to be the confirmation of the truth of
all religions. The former Scriptures had become obscure, the former
Prophets appeared mythical, so extravagant were the legends which were
told concerning them, so that people doubted whether there was any
truth in the old Scriptures, whether such people as the Prophets had
ever really existed. Here - says the Qur'an - is a Scripture whereof
there is no doubt: here is a Prophet actually living among you and
preaching to you. If it were not for this book and this Prophet, men
might be excused for saying that Allah's guidance to mankind was all a
fable. This book and this Prophet, therefore, confirm the truth of all
that was revealed before them, and those who disbelieve in them to the
point of opposing the existence of a Prophet and a revelation are
really opposed to the idea of Allah's guidance - which is the truth of
all revealed religions. Our Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself said that the
term Kafir was not to be applied to anyone who said "Salam" (peace) to
the Muslims. The Kafirs, in the terms of the Qur'an, are the conscious
evil-doers of any race of creed or community.
I have made a long digression but it seemed to me necessary, for I
find much confusion of ideas even among Muslims on this subject, owing
to defective study of the Qur'an and the Prophet's life. Many Muslims
seem to forget that our Prophet had allies among the idolaters even
after Islam had triumphed in Arabia, and that he "fulfilled his treaty
with them perfectly until the term thereof." The righteous conduct of
the Muslims, not the sword, must be held responsible for the
conversion of those idolaters, since they embraced Islam before the
expiration of their treaty.
So much for the idolaters of Arabia, who had no real beliefs to oppose
the teaching of Islam, but only superstition. They invoked their local
deities for help in war and put their faith only in brute force. In
this they were, to begin with, enormously superior to the Muslims.
When the Muslims nevertheless won, they were dismayed; and all their
arguments based on the superior power of their deities were for ever
silenced. Their conversion followed naturally. It was only a question
of time with the most obstinate of them.
It was otherwise with the people who had a respectable religion of
their own - the People of the Scripture - as the Qur'an calls them -
i.e, the people who had received the revelation of some former
Prophet: the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians were those with
whom the Muslims came at once in contact. To these our Prophet's
attitude was all of kindness. The Charter which he granted to the
Christian monks of Sinai is extant. If you read it you will see that
it breathes not only goodwill but actual love. He gave to the Jews of
Medina, so long as they were faithful to him, precisely the same
treatment as to the Muslims. He never was aggressive against any man
or class of men; he never penalized any man, or made war on any
people, on the ground of belief but only on the ground of conduct.
The story of his reception of Christian and Zoroastrian visitors is on
record. There is not a trace of religious intolerance in all this. And
it should be remembered - Muslims are rather apt to forget it, and it
is of great importance to our outlook - that our Prophet did not ask
the people of the Scripture to become his followers. He asked them
only to accept the Kingdom of Allah, to abolish priesthood and restore
their own religions to their original purity. The question which, in
effect, he put to everyone was this: "Are you for the Kingdom of God
which includes all of us, or are you for your own community against
the rest of mankind?" The one is obviously the way of peace and human
progress, the other the way of strife, oppression and calamity. But
the rulers of the world, to whom he sent his message, most of them
treated it as the message of either an insolent upstart or a mad
fanatic. His envoys were insulted cruelly, and even slain. One cannot
help wondering what reception that same embassy would meet with from
the rulers of mankind today, when all the thinking portion of mankind
accept the Prophet's premises, have thrown off the trammels of
priestcraft, and harbor some idea of human brotherhood.
But though the Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians refused his
message, and their rulers heaped most cruel insults on his envoys, our
Prophet never lost his benevolent attitudes towards them as religious
communities; as witness the Charter to the monks of Sinai already
mentioned. And though the Muslims of later days have fallen far short
of the Holy Prophet's tolerance, and have sometimes shown arrogance
towards men of other faiths, they have always given special treatment
to the Jews and Christians. Indeed the Laws for their special
treatment form part of the Shari'ah.
In Egypt the Copts were on terms of closest friendship with the
Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, and they are on
terms at closest friendship with the Muslims at the present day. In
Syria the various Christian communities lived on terms of closest
friendship with the Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim
conquest, and they are on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims
at the present day, openly preferring Muslim domination to a foreign
yoke.
There were always flourishing Jewish communities in the Muslim realm,
notably in Spain, North Africa, Syria, Iraq and later on in Turkey.
Jews fled from Christian persecution to Muslim countries for refuge.
Whole communities of them voluntarily embraced Islam following a
revered rabbi whom they regarded as the promised Messiah but many more
remained as Jews, and they were never persecuted as in Christendom.
The Turkish Jews are one with the Turkish Muslims today. And it is
noteworthy that the Arabic-speaking Jews of Palestine - the old
immigrants from Spain and Poland - are one with the Muslims and
Christians in opposition to the transformation of Palestine into a
national home for the Jews.
To turn to the Christians, the story of the triumphal entry of the
Khalifah Umar ibn al-Khattab into Jerusalem has been often told, but I
shall tell it once again, for it illustrates the proper Muslim
attitude towards the People of the Scripture....The Christian
officials urged him to spread his carpet in the Church (of the Holy
Sepulchre) itself, but he refused saying that some of the ignorant
Muslims after him might claim the Church and convert it into a mosque
because he had once prayed there. He had his carpet carried to the top
of the steps outside the church, to the spot where the Mosque of Umar
now stands - the real Mosque of Umar, for the splendid
Qubbet-us-Sakhrah, which tourists call the Mosque of Umar, is not a
Mosque at all, but the temple of Jerusalem; a shrine within the
precincts of the Masjid-al-Aqsa, which is the second of the Holy
Places of Islam.
From that day to this; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has always
been a Christian place of worship, the only things the Muslims did in
the way of interference with the Christian's liberty of conscience in
respect of it was to see that every sect of Christians had access to
it, and that it was not monopolized by one sect to the exclusion of
others. The same is true of the Church of the Nativity of Bethlehem,
and of other buildings of special sanctity.
Under the Khulafa-ur-Rashidin and the Umayyads, the true Islamic
attitude was maintained, and it continued to a much later period under
the Umayyad rule in Spain. In those days it was no uncommon thing for
Muslims and Christian to use the same places of worship. I could point
to a dozen buildings in Syria which tradition says were thus
conjointly used; and I have seen at Lud (Lydda), in the plain of
Sharon, a Church of St. George and a mosque under the same roof with
only a partition wall between. The partition wall did not exist in
early days. The words of the Khalifah Umar proved true in other cases;
not only half the church at Lydda, but the whole church in other
places was claimed by ignorant Muslims of a later day on the mere
ground that the early Muslims had prayed there. But there was absolute
liberty of conscience for the Christians; they kept their most
important Churches and built new ones; though by a later edict their
church bells were taken from them because their din annoyed the
Muslims, it was said; only the big bell of the Holy Sepulchre
remaining. They used to call to prayer by beating a naqus, a wooden
gong, the same instrument which the Prophet Noah (pbuh) is said to
have used to summon the chosen few into his ark.
It was not the Christians of Syria who desired the Crusades , nor did
the Crusades care a jot for them, or their sentiments, regarding them
as heretics and interlopers. The latter word sounds strange in this
connection, but there is a reason for its use.
The great Abbasid Khalifah Harun ar-Rashid had, God knows why, once
sent the keys of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre among other presents
to the Frankish Emperor, Charlemagne. Historically, it was a wrong to
the Christians of Syria, who did not belong to the Western Church, and
asked for no protection other than the Muslim government. Politically,
it was a mistake and proved the source of endless after trouble to the
Muslim Empire. The keys sent, it is true, were only duplicate keys.
The Church was in daily use. It was not locked up till such time as
Charlemagne, Emperor of the West, chose to lock it. The present of the
keys was intended only as a compliment, as one would say: "You and
your people can have free access to the Church which is the center of
your faith, your goal of pilgrimage, whenever you may come to visit
it." But the Frankish Christians took the present seriously in after
times regarding it as the title to a freehold, and looking on the
Christians of the country as mere interlopers, as I said before, as
well as heretics.
That compliment from king to king was the foundation of all the
extravagant claims of France in later centuries. Indirectly it was the
foundation of Russia's even more extortionate claims, for Russia
claimed to protect the Eastern Church against the encroachment of
Roman Catholics; and it was the cause of nearly all the ill feeling
which ever existed between the Muslims and their Christians Dhimmis.
When the Crusaders took Jerusalem they massacred the Eastern
Christians with the Muslims indiscriminately, and while they ruled in
Palestine the Eastern Christians, such of them as did not accompany
the retreating Muslim army, were deprived of all the privileges which
Islam secured to them and were treated as a sort of outcasters. Many
of them became Roman Catholics in order to secure a higher status; but
after the re-conquest, when the emigrants returned, the followers of
the Eastern church were found again to be in large majority over those
who owed obedience to the Pope of Rome. The old order was
reestablished and all the Dhimmis once again enjoyed their privileges
in accordance with the Sacred Law (of Islam).
But the effect of those fanatical inroads had been somewhat to
embitter Muslim sentiments, and to ting them with an intellectual
contempt for the Christian generally; which was bad for Muslims and
for Christians both; since it made the former arrogant and oppressive
to the latter socially, and the intellectual contempt, surviving the
intellectual superiority, blinded the Muslims to the scientific
advance of the West till too late.
The arrogance hardened into custom, and when Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt
occupied Syria in the third decade of the nineteenth century, a
deputation of the Muslims of Damascus waited on him with a complaint
that under his rule the Christians were beginning to ride on
horseback. Ibrahim Pasha pretended to be greatly shocked at the news,
and asked leave to think for a whole night on so disturbing an
announcement. Next morning, he informed the deputation that since it
was, of course, a shame for Christians to ride as high as Muslims, he
gave permission to all Muslims thenceforth to ride on camels. That was
probably the first time that the Muslims of Damascus had ever been
brought face to face with the absurdity of their pretentions.
By the beginning of the Eighteenth century AD, the Christians had, by
custom, been made subject to certain social disabilities, but these
were never, at the worst, so cruel or so galling as those to which the
Roman Catholic nobility of France at the same period subjected their
own Roman Catholic peasantry, or as those which Protestants imposed on
Roman Catholics in Ireland; and they weighed only on the wealthy
portion of the community. The poor Muslims and poor Christians were on
an equality, and were still good friends and neighbors.
The Muslims never interfered with the religion of the subject
Christians. (e.g., The Treaty of Orihuela, Spain, 713.) There was
never anything like the Inquisition or the fires of Smithfield. Nor
did they interfere in the internal affairs of their communities. Thus
a number of small Christian sects, called by the larger sects
heretical, which would inevitably have been exterminated if left to
the tender mercies of the larger sects whose power prevailed in
Christendom, were protected and preserved until today by the power of
Islam.
Innumerable monasteries, with a wealth of treasure of which the worth
has been calculated at not less than a hundred millions sterling,
enjoyed the benefit of the Holy Prophet's Charter to the monks of
Sinai and were religiously respected by the Muslims. The various sects
of Christians were represented in the Council of the Empire by their
patriarchs, on the provincial and district council by their bishops,
in the village council by their priests, whose word was always taken
without question on things which were the sole concern of their
community.
With regard to the respect for monasteries, I have a curious instance
of my own remembrance. In the year 1905 the Arabic congregation of the
Greek Orthodox Church in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or Church
of the Resurrection as it is locally called, rebelled against the
tyranny of the Monks of the adjoining convent of St. George. The
convent was extremely rich, and a large part of its revenues was
derived from lands which had been made over to it by the ancestors of
the Arab congregation for security at a time when property was
insecure; relying on the well known Muslim reverence for religious
foundations. The income was to be paid to the depositors and their
descendants, after deducting something for the convent.
No income had been paid to anybody by the Monks for more than a
century, and the congregation now demanded that at least a part of
that ill-gotten wealth should be spent on education of the community.
The Patriarch sided with the congregation, but was captured by the
Monks, who kept him prisoner. The congregation tried to storm the
convent, and the amiable monk poured vitriol down upon the faces of
the congregation. The congregation appealed to the Turkish government,
which secured the release of the Patriarch and some concessions for
the congregation, but could not make the monks disgorge any part of
their wealth because of the immunities secured to Monasteries by the
Sacred Law (of Islam). What made the congregation the more bitter was
the fact that certain Christians who, in old days, had made their
property over to the Masjid al-Aqsa - the great mosque of Jerusalem -
for security, were receiving income yearly from it even then.
Here is another incident from my own memory. A sub-prior of the
Monastery of St. George purloined a handful from the enormous treasure
of the Holy Sepulchre - a handful worth some forty thousand pounds -
and tried to get away with it to Europe. He was caught at Jaffa by the
Turkish customs officers and brought back to Jerusalem. The poor man
fell on his face before the Mutasarrif imploring him with tears to
have him tried by Turkish Law. The answer was: "We have no
jurisdiction over monasteries," and the poor groveling wretch was
handed over to the tender mercies of his fellow monks.
But the very evidence of their toleration, the concessions given to
the subject people of another faith, were used against them in the end
by their political opponents just as the concessions granted in their
day of strength to foreigners came to be used against them in their
day of weakness, as capitulations.
I can give you one curious instance of a capitulation, typical of
several others. Three hundred years ago, the Franciscan friars were
the only Western European missionaries to be found in the Muslim
Empire. There was a terrible epidemic of plague, and those Franciscans
worked devotedly, tending the sick and helping to bury the dead of all
communities. In gratitude for this great service, the Turkish
government decreed that all property of the Franciscans should be free
of customs duty for ever. In the Firman (Edict) the actual words used
were "Frankish missionaries" and at later time, when there were
hundreds of missionaries from the West, most of them of other sects
than the Roman Catholic, they all claimed that privilege and were
allowed it by the Turkish government because the terms of the original
Firman included them. Not only that, but they claimed that concession
as a right, as if it had been won for them by force of arms or
international treaty instead of being, as it was, a free gift of the
Sultan; and called upon their consuls and ambassadors to support them
strongly if it was at all infringed.
The Christians were allowed to keep their own languages and customs,
to start their own schools and to be visited by missionaries to their
own faith from Christendom. Thus they formed patches of nationalism in
a great mass of internationalism or universal brotherhood; for as I
have already said the tolerance within the body of Islam was, and is,
something without parallel in history; class and race and color
ceasing altogether to be barriers.
In countries where nationality and language were the same in Syria,
Egypt and Mesopotamia there was no clash of ideals, but in Turkey,
where the Christians spoke quite different languages from the Muslims,
the ideals were also different. So long as the nationalism was
un-aggressive, all went well; and it remained un-aggressive - that is
to say, the subject Christians were content with their position - so
long as the Muslim Empire remained better governed, more enlightened
and more prosperous than Christian countries. And that may be said to
have been the case, in all human essentials, up to the beginning of
the seventeenth century.
Then for a period of about eighty years the Turkish Empire was badly
governed; and the Christians suffered not from Islamic Institutions
but from the decay or neglect of Islamic Institutions. Still it took
Russia more than a century of ceaseless secret propaganda work to stir
ups spirit of aggressive nationalism in the subject Christians, and
then only by appealing to their religious fanaticism.
After the eighty years of bad government came the era of conscious
reform, when the Muslim government turned its attention to the
improvement of the status of all the peoples under it. But then it was
too late to win back the Serbs, the Greeks, the Bulgars and the
Romans. The poison of the Russian religious-political propaganda had
done its work, and the prestige of Russian victories over the Turks
had excited in the worst elements among the Christians of the Greek
Church, the hope of an early opportunity to slaughter and despoil the
Muslims, strengthening the desire to do so which had been instilled in
them by Russian secret envoys, priests and monks.
I do not wish to dwell upon this period of history, though it is to me
the best known of all, for it is too recent and might rouse too strong
a feeling in my audience. I will only remind you that in the Greek War
of Independence in 1811, three hundred thousand Muslims - men and
women and children - the whole Muslim population of the Morea without
exception, as well as many thousands in the northern parts of Greece -
were wiped out in circumstances of the most atrocious cruelty; that in
European histories we seldom find the slightest mention of that
massacre, though we hear much of the reprisals which the Turks took
afterwards; that before every massacre of Christians by Muslims of
which you read, there was a more wholesale massacre or attempted
massacre of Muslims by Christians; that those Christians were old
friends and neighbors of the Muslims - the Armenians were the
favorites of the Turks till fifty years ago - and that most of them
were really happy under Turkish rule, as has been shown again and
again by their tendency to return to it after so called liberation.
It was the Christians outside the Muslim Empire who systematically and
continually fed their religious fanaticism: it was their priests who
told them that to slaughter Muslims was a meritorious act. I doubt if
anything so wicked can be found in history as that plot for the
destruction of Turkey. When I say "wicked," I mean inimical to human
progress and therefore against Allah's guidance and His purpose for
mankind. For it has made religious tolerance appear a weakness in the
eyes of all the worldlings, because the multitudes of Christians who
lived peacefully in Turkey are made to seem the cause of Turkey's
martyrdom and downfall; while on the other hand the method of
persecution and extermination which has always prevailed in
Christendom is made to seem comparatively strong and wise.
Thus religious tolerance is made to seem a fault, politically. But it
is not really so. The victims of injustice are always less to be
pitied in reality than the perpetrators of injustice.
From the expulsion of the Moriscos dates the degradation and decline
of Spain: San Fernando was really wiser and more patriotic in his
tolerance to conquered Seville, Murcia and Toledo than was the later
king who, under the guise of Holy warfare, captured Grenada and let
the Inquisition work its will upon the Muslims and the Jews. And the
modern Balkan States and Greece are born under a curse. It may even
prove that the degradation and decline of European civilization will
be dated from the day when so-called civilized statesmen agreed to the
inhuman policy of Czarist Russia and gave their sanction to the crude
fanaticism of the Russian Church.
There is no doubt but that, in the eyes of history, religious
toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people. Let no
Muslim, when looking on the ruin of the Muslim realm which was
compassed through the agency of those very peoples whom the Muslims
had tolerated and protected through the centuries when Western Europe
thought it a religious duty to exterminate or forcibly convert all
peoples of another faith than theirs - let no Muslim, seeing this,
imagine that toleration is a weakness in Islam. It is the greatest
strength of Islam because it is the attitude of truth.
Allah (SWT) is not the God of the Jews or the Christians or the
Muslims only, any more than the sun shines or the rain falls for Jews
or Christians or Muslims only.
(Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall was an Englishman, an orientalist, and a
Muslim who translated the meaning of the Holy Qur'an. His translation
was first published in 1930 and he was supported in this effort by His
Highness, the Nizam of Hyderabad (the ruler of Deccan, in the South),
India. Pickthall traveled extensively to several Muslim countries,
including Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Egypt, Arabia and India. He spent
several years in India and had interacted with the Muslims of India.
AnonMoos
>> I've just uploaded to the web a page
>> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm which
>> contains specific information on the most accurate pronunciations
>> of the name of Jesus in certain Semitic languages.
>>> I don't see what's your problem is with Muslims using Easa?
>> I don't have any problems with Muslims using `Isa -- as long as
>> they don't try to claim that it's the authentic original
>> pronunciation of the name of Jesus (instead of being a highly
>> distorted and corrupted pronunciation, which it in fact is).
>> I'm actually more tolerant than you are -- I have no objections to
>> Muslims using `Isa, but I imagine you would have many objections to
>> Christians using "Mahomet" or "Mahound".
> Hmmm...your seem to be as tolerant as those you accuse of insulting
> Jesus (a.s) a few lines above. I am sure that your vitriolic attacks
> against the Prophet (a.s.w.s) don`t make your case true either.
I wouldn't say that Muhammad was any kind of thoroughly evil man, but
it's a simple fact (which can be ascertained from materials preserved
by Muslim historians themselves) that when he attained power, he gave
in to temptations to misuse that power on a number of separate
occasions.
I don't go around with a goal of blackening the name of Muhammad, but
when people say that he was the best model or ideal pattern for all
humankind, then I vigorously resist such assertions, since according
to any solid framework of morality or ethics he simply WASN'T any kind
of best model or ideal pattern for all humanity. Here's a classic
orientalist quote which I know you'll just love: ;-)
"...the true Mohammed was really an Arabian of the
seventh-century, with (it may be) all the virtues of his time
and some in which he was beyond his time; [but] also with many
of the violence and sins of his time and environment: and that
therefore the claims made for him (but not by him) to be
humanity's beau-ideal and consummate example for ever, is a
pernicious one"
> Meaning of MAHOUND Pronunciation: mu'hawnd Webster's 1913 Dictionary
> Definition: \Ma`hound\, n. A contemptuous name for Mohammed; hence,
> an evil spirit; a devil. [Obs.]
The thing is, that Mahound and Mahomet were not actually originally
deliberately misspelled terms when they were first in used in the
English language (the 1200s-1300s A.D.). Though the Englishmen of
that time were undoubtedly contemptuous of Muhammad (insofar as they
were even aware of his existence), the altered forms of his name were
due to mere ignorance (and a long chain of intermediate languages
intervening between Arabic and English during that period) -- not due
to a deliberate intentional insult. (This will become more obvious if
you look at the OED dictionary entries for "Mahomet" and "Mahound" and
see the numerous and diverse spelling variations in use during the
early centuries.) In that sense "Mahound" and "Mahomet" are quite
different from Yod-Shin-Waw in the Talmud, which was very
intentionally distorted.
There's nothing wrong with `Isa in Arabic either, UNLESS someone tries
to claim that this is is supposedly somehow the original and most
authentic name of Jesus -- something which is just as ridiculous as
someone claiming that Mahound is original and most authentic name of
Muhammad would be!
You know a quite a bit of Arabic, but you really know no linguistics
or Hebrew or Aramaic, so that it's hard to see how you can make a
substantive contribution to a discussion about the original linguistic
phonetic form of the name of Jesus. (But go ahead and surprise me!)
If you look at the graphic on web-page
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm and you don't
understand the non-Arabic lettering on the left, or the phonetic
transcriptions on the right, then it might be best to leave it alone.
Meanwhile, those Muslims who complain about non-Muslims using the
spelling "Mohammed" instead of "Muhammad" in English, but see nothing
wrong with `Isa for Jesus, are basically either ignorant or hypocrites.
> Tolerance In Islam By Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
Ah, the man who worked so long and zealously to include rather
poorly-done imitation King James version English ("thou", "thee",
etc.) into English-language Qur'an translations!
;-)
> One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and
> as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant.
I don't know that there's really any sweeping broad generalization to
be made about Muslim tolerance which would be valid over many
centuries of history in many different geographical areas -- but one
generalization which would be more or less true is that Muslims were
consistently encouraged by their religion to attack and conquer all
adjacent non-Muslim-ruled areas, and that Muslims decided among
themselves how tolerant they would choose to be towards non-Muslims.
> The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in
> the eighteenth century, did not know and did not Care to know, what
> the Muslim believed,
Really? Then why was a professorship in the Arabic language (the
Adams Professorship of Arabic) created at Cambridge University in
England in the year 1632? Most Muslims really had very little
interest in what the remote northwestern barbarians of Christian
Europe thought or felt until the eighteenth century (when they had
already been militarily beaten by Europeans numerous times over many
decades). Please do give me a list of Muslim visitors to Latin
(Catholic and Protestant) Christian Europe prior to the eighteenth
century! It will be a rather short list, and very few of them will
have been motivated by intellectual curiosity about Christian
Europeans...
> If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of
> Christendom, in those days,
Muslims knew very little and cared very little about "wild" Christians
in Europe (the normal meaning of the word "Christendom", as opposed to
Christianity) -- they knew much more about their "tame" Christians
living within Muslim-ruled states.
> those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but
> utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have
> taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension.
Was it a "misapprehension" that the Fatimid Caliph Hakim demolshed the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1009 A.D., or that the
Turks prevented European Christians from making pilgrimages to
Jerusalem? Was it a "misapprehension" that the early Muslims had
conquered Egypt, Syria, and Western Iraq from the Christian Byzantine
empire by means of imperialist colonialist wars of raw naked
aggression and expansionism back in the 630s A.D.? Was it a
"misapprehension" that after the battle of Manzikert in 1071 A.D., the
Turks looked likely to do the same thing for what was left of the
Byzantine empire, so that the Latin Christians would then be "flanked"
by being in direct contact with Muslim states along two fronts
simultaneously, in both the Balkans and in Spain? (A very realistic
fear at the time, and one which came true several centuries later --
but not before the Christians had gained the military upper hand in
Spain, fortunately). The Europeans of 1095 had apprehensions about
the future survival of Christendom which had some reasonable basis in
fact, and the Crusades seemed like a preemptive direct strike into the
heart of Islamic territory which would return Christian holy sites to
Christian control. The Crusades had their fanatical aspect, but they
also had an aspect of sober military strategy in defense of the
Christian "Ummah".
> From that day to this; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has always
> been a Christian place of worship,
Overlooking the slight incident of its destruction in 1009 AD....
> In the Qur'an I find two meanings (of a Kafir),
In the Qur'an I find the following terms used by Muhammad to describe
Christians:
Kafir ("infidel") -- see Qur'an verse 5:72, where the second word is
kafara (i.e. "he/they blaspheme"), which is said of Christians; this
word is a closely-related verbal form derived from the same root and
Arabic grammatical stem (1st stem of root KFR) as the participle Kafir.
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/5/5_72.htm
Mushrik ("polytheist") -- see Qur'an verse 5:72, where the word
yushrik (literally "he makes a partner" for God, i.e. thinks that
something other than God is divine) is applied to Christians; this
word is a closely-related verbal form derived from the same root and
Arabic grammatical stem (4th stem of root ShRK) as the participle Mushrik.
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/5/5_72.htm
Saghir ("humbled" or "subservient") -- see the last word of Qur'an
verse 9:29, which is Saghirun (the plural form of the adjective),
applied to Christians and Jews.
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/9/9_29.htm
Some "tolerance"!
> The Qur'an repeatedly claims to be the confirmation of the truth of
> all religions.
As long as followers of all religions are willing to blindly accept
Muhammad's interpretations on all matters to be authoritative.
> The former Scriptures had become obscure, the former Prophets
> appeared mythical, so extravagant were the legends which were told
> concerning them,
So Muhammad reduced this extravagance by including in the Qur'an the
occultistic fairytale of Solomon's conversation with the ants, and
legendary folktales (such as the Iron Wall and the muddy puddle in
which the sun sets) taken from the Alexander Romance!!! I see...
--
The Iron Wall of protection in the Qur'an: 18:94 qālū yā dhā ´l-qarnayni 'inna
yājūja wa-mājūja mufsidūna fī ´l-'arDi 18:95 qāla 'aj`al baynakum wa-baynahum
radman 18:97 famā ´sTā`ū 'an yaZharūhu wamā ´staTā`ū lahu naqban 18:98 qāla
hādhā raHmatun min rabbī || In English: 18:94 They said to Dhu'l-Qarnain, "Gog
& Magog are causing corruption (doing evil) on earth." 18:95 He said, "I will
make a wall between you and them." 18:97 And Gog & Magog were not able to climb
over it or dig through it. 18:98 He said, "This is a mercy (kindness) from my
Lord." Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
AnonMoos
>"1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Most likely, the reason it was 'dropped' was because it wasn't there
>> in the first place! Yeshu without the AYN
> Then why does the `Ayn consonant (or `E consonant, as it's called in
> that language) appear in the Peshitta which you're so fond of citing??
> Go to http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm , and look
> at the line of the diagram of Aramaic; the leftmost symbol on that line
> (looking like scissors cutting through cloth) is the letter `E (`Ayn).
> Why does that Aramaic `Ayn consonant in the name of Jesus even exist
> at all, according to your theory?? Please do explain!!
And where does the initial `Ayn in `Isa come from, according to your
theory? You can hardly claim that it existed in Hebrew or Aramaic!
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
<news:1107153093.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> Even during Jesus' time, Targums (Aramaic
> translations of Old Testament) were used, and it is
> assumed that Hebrew continued to be used by a
> is why at the alleged crucifixion, Jesus used the
> a translation of Psalms 22:1-2).
I wanted to post a second response, giving some thoughts to this issue
precisely, then at the end I will try to look at 1Man4All's argument
overall.
Regarding the quote attributed to Jesus, let me say that yes, this is
apparently a translation of the passage from Psalms that reads "Eli Eli
lamah 'azavtani". However, assuming this is Aramaic (and that is a
pretty good assumption since Alqalay's "Milon 'Ivri-Angli Shalem"
treats the verb lishboq as being primarily Aramaic), the
transliteration provided by the New Testament implies an Aramaic that
is *very* close to Hebrew. Neither the translation of the relevant
Psalm in Unqelos, nor the rendering of this passage in the Peshitta is
as close as this phrase appears to be. Let me explain...
Let us presuppose, for a moment, that the verb lishboq (from the
shin-bet-qof root) is/was part of Hebrew. Of course this would beg the
question why the speaker didn't employ the verb la'azov, but I'll
ignore that for now. The grammar implied by the transliteration is
perfect Hebrew. "Eli, Eli, lamah..." is right out of Pslalms, so that
leaves us with "sabachthani" ("shabaqtani"). In Hebrew, like Arabic,
the second person, masculine singular, perfect tense conjugation of the
first verb stem (pa'al/fa'ala) would be R1aR2aR3Ta (where Rn represents
the radical/root letter, T represents the tav/taa, and 'a' represents a
vowel which in modern texts would be represented by the niqudot/nuqat).
So examples would be as follows:
qatalta = qatalta = "you killed"
pa'alta = fa'alta = "you did"
katavta = katabta = "you wrote"
To say that the person did that to you (i.e. "you did it to me"), you
simply put "ni" at the end. Thus we have "azavtani" in Hebrew, and from
the verb taraka we can get "taraktani" in Arabic, both meaning "you
left me, you abandoned me," et cetera.
Now, one might ask, "if we're just making presuppositions, why not
presuppose the shin-baa-qaf root can also mean 'abandon/leave' in
Arabic and conclude the phrase was Arabic?" The problem would be (aside
from the inability to find "shabaqa" with the meaning "leave/abandon"
in any Arabic dictionary) the usage of "Eli, Eli, lamah...". That shows
that it is not Arabic, as something like "Ilahi, Ilahi, limaza..."
would have fit better. So assuming the root is within Hebrew results in
a sentence that makes perfect sense in Hebrew, while this does not seem
to be the case with other languages (e.g. Arabic, Syriac).
Today at the Library I came across the following: Wm. B. Stevenson,
"Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic," 2nd ed., (Oxford: Clarendon,
1962). On p. 9, working within the paradigm of the scholarship of
Gustaf Dalman, a study of the respective grammars present in Unqelos,
Targum of Jonathan, the Yerushalmi and the Midrashim is treated as "the
best avenue of approach to the Aramaic speech of Palestine in the time
of Christ and a valuable help to the study of the language and thought
of the New Testament." The reason I bring this up is because the book
may be right; the grammar present in these sources may be better for
understanding first century Palestinian Aramaic than is the Peshitta.
The book provides a way to conjugate verbs in the first verb stem
(p'al/PeAL) [p. 46] as well as a section on how to employ verbal
suffixes [pp. 81-82], and it seems the way to say "you did to me" would
be identical to the way it is done in Arabic and Hebrew (the only
differences seem to be that an alef might follow the tav [and precede
the nun], though this is not the case with the passage in Unqelos, and
there is an absence of a vowel between R1 & R2 ["sh'baqtani"]). One
question the book does not answer (and it is a question I am ignorant
of), is if these forms of Aramaic can employ "lamah". Exempli gratia:
Targum Unqelos to the relevant verse in Psalms reads "Eli, Eli, metual
mah sh'baqtani" - it did not employ "lamah". Also, while I don't know
the credentials of this site, the following on-line Targum to Psalms
(provided by a Christian site) employs "lamnaa" [l'manaa?] (with a nun)
rather than "lamah":
http://www.gospelgo.com/i/psa.htm
If you can't navigate the text, it conveniently uses Arabic/Indian
numerals to head each chapter, so you can use ctrl+F to find "22" to
get to the relevant verse [Psalms 22:1/2]. The text also uses "Elahi"
instead of "Eli" (but I suppose that is not tremendously relevant).
Now, take a look at the Peshitta's rendering of Mark 15:34 at:
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch15.pdf
Aside from slightly different pronunciations, the text still feels the
need to translate the phrase [however, the translation is identical to
the online translation of Psalms noted above] (and, on a side-note,
garbles "Eli", switching the lamed with the yod), implying what we
already knew: the Aramaic spoken by Jesus is not identical to the later
Christian (Syrian) Aramaic of the Peshitta.
So let me get to my point: The Aramaic quote attributed to Jesus in the
New Testament gives the impression that the Aramaic he spoke was very
close to Hebrew, in fact closer to Hebrew than is the Syriac of the
Peshitta, and *possibly* even closer than the Aramaic employed in
Targum Unqelos. If we assumed that the shin-bet-qof root is part of
Hebrew, the sentence becomes pefect Hebrew. If we don't grant such an
assumption (an assumption which I admit may be baseless), then, as was
just noted, we must conclude the Aramaic employed was strikingly close
to Hebrew. 1Man4All has (a) made an appeal to this cry on the cross
attributed to Jesus, and (b) asked us to believe that the Aramaic
spoken by Jesus was drastically different from Hebrew. From what I have
written above, one may conclude that (a) is in conflict with (b) [i.e.
an appeal to the cry on the cross leads to the conclusion that the
Aramaic of Jesus was quite close to Hebrew].
{==========================}
That being established, as we wait for 1Man4All's forthcoming response
to the posts by Anonmoos and myself, I thought I'd try to formalize and
summarize 1Man's argument. Where certain modal operators (i.e.
"possibly" vis a vis "necessarily") go are open to debate or 1Man's own
clarification, as his argument was vague on this point. Nonetheless,
here goes (and I look forward to any clarification/elucidation by
1Man):
(1) Jesus spoke Aramaic, thus his name would employ an Aramaic
pronunciation.
(2) The Aramaic pronunciation of Jesus' name according to the Peshitta
is "Eesho".
(3) The shin and sin are represented by a single character in Aramaic
and Hebrew, thus it is *possible* that the shin in "Eesho" was rendered
as a sin [i.e. "Eeso"].
(4) Therefore, the best pronunciation of Jesus' name was Eeso or even
Eesa.
If this is not (after all the fat has been trimmed) 1Man's argument, I
look forward to corrections by him. I will ignore the transition from
Eeso to Eesa in the conclusion (a leap made by Shibli as well), since,
as I myself noted elsewhere in this discussion, waw, yaa and alif often
get swapped in transitions from one Semitic language to another.
The real problems are as follows: The first premise is merely an
assumption. It is possible that a different pronunciation was employed
by Aramaic speakers for Hebrew names in the first century, but it has
not been demonstrated as actually being the case. As for the second
premise, this is one possible pronunciation, but as has already been
shown, Yeshua is another possible one (so we could reverse the logic by
instantiation "Yeshua" in place of "Eesho" in the first premise and
ultimately reach a conclusion different from 1Man's). Furthermore,
since when is the Peshitta (or any other Christian Aramaic text) the
end-all on Palestinian Aramaic, and why should we just trust
transliterations of these texts? Couldn't we play the same game against
1Man by siding with the Aramaic text of Unqelos or even the TaNaKh, and
assume the way yod-shin-vav-ayn is transliterated from there (or
represented by the niqqudot!) represents the way Jesus' name was
pronounced in the 1st century?
It seems, then, that if this the conclusion is being presented as
necessarily true, it does not follow from the premises. Furthermore, it
seems that in light of the shaky nature of the first and second
premises, there is good ground on which to conclude the argument is
unsound. This is reason enough to be doubtful about 1Man's approach
(i.e. one does not have to go into his tendency to ignore the ayn at
the start of Eesa, or some of his other bizarre arguments, like the ayn
never being at the end of Jesus' name[!!!]). Nonetheless, I look
forward to further contribution by 1Man or anyone else who is a
proponent of this argument.
...
Shaykh al-Ishraak, Abdul-Khinzeer Abu Khamr al-Mushrik al-Amriki
gaby
"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote:...
Ah...that "BUT" again!
> it's a simple fact (which can be ascertained from materials
> preserved
> by Muslim historians themselves)
Who are these historians? Names? Quotes? Which material? Care to
share with us?
> that when he attained power, he gave
> in to temptations to misuse that power on a number of separate
> occasions.
For instance??
> I don't go around with a goal of blackening the name of
> Muhammad, but
Ah..."BUT" again!
> when people say that he was the best model or ideal pattern
> for all
> humankind, then I vigorously resist such assertions, since
> according
> to any solid framework of morality or ethics
What kind of "solid framework of morality and ethics"? Set by
whom? On whose behalf? Do share again with us?
> he simply WASN'T any kind
> of best model or ideal pattern for all humanity. Here's a
> classic
> orientalist quote which I know you'll just love:
> ;-)
> "...the true Mohammed was really an Arabian of the
> seventh-century, with (it may be) all the virtues of his
> time
> and some in which he was beyond his time; [but] also with
> many
> of the violence and sins of his time and environment: and
> that
> therefore the claims made for him (but not by him) to be
> humanity's beau-ideal and consummate example for ever, is a
> pernicious one"
LOL...typical orientalist balderdash with no substance. Njet!
>> Meaning of MAHOUND Pronunciation: mu'hawnd Webster's 1913
>> Dictionary
>> Definition: \Ma`hound\, n. A contemptuous name for Mohammed;
>> hence,
>> an evil spirit; a devil. [Obs.]
> The thing is, that Mahound and Mahomet were not actually
> originally
> deliberately misspelled terms when they were first in used in
> the
> English language (the 1200s-1300s A.D.).
It was a deliberate, ill-willed and Muslim offending
misspelling! Your apologetic stance doesn't make such medieval
Christian tirades against The Prophet (a.s.w.s) void. Sorry, I
cannot buy it.
> Though the Englishmen of
> that time were undoubtedly contemptuous of Muhammad (insofar
> as they
> were even aware of his existence), the altered forms of his
> name were
> due to mere ignorance (and a long chain of intermediate
> languages
> intervening between Arabic and English during that period) --
> not due
> to a deliberate intentional insult.
This is simply ridiculous.
> (This will become more obvious if
> you look at the OED dictionary entries for "Mahomet" and
> "Mahound" and
> see the numerous and diverse spelling variations in use during
> the
> early centuries.) In that sense "Mahound" and "Mahomet" are
> quite
> different from Yod-Shin-Waw in the Talmud, which was very
> intentionally distorted.
> There's nothing wrong with `Isa in Arabic either, UNLESS
> someone tries
> to claim that this is supposedly somehow the original and
> most
> authentic name of Jesus --
"´Isa" is the name given to Jesus (a.s) from the Almighty Allah
(s.w.t), neither you nor any other Christian apologist will be
ever able to change this simple fact. Take it or leave it,
simple. Additionally, if you want to teach us what our belief is
all about, then again, clean first your Christian theological
construct and come back with a clear, rational and
comprehensible concept of God, Jesus, The Prophets, the purpose
of life and so forth, then again we would be willing to talk
about your famous "solid framework of morality and ethics", its
origins and basics. Until then, you unfortunately have a lot of
self-made mess to clean up.
> You know a quite a bit of Arabic, but you really know no
> linguistics
> or Hebrew or Aramaic, so that it's hard to see how you can
> make a
> substantive contribution to a discussion about the original
> linguistic
> phonetic form of the name of Jesus. (But go ahead and
> surprise me!)
I`m not interested in such annoying linguistic debates nor am I
the one who incessantly brags about his qualification as you
used to do. BUT (a legitimate BUT), when you claim to argue on
the base of scholarship while you viciously attack our Prophet
(a.s.w.s) using medieval Christian and outdated tirades against
him, so be assured that you`re discrediting yourself. In such
cases, and then again, it is morally legitimate to point out the
discrepancy between your pseudo-scientific argumentation on one
hand and your infamous insults towards Muhammad (a.s.w.s)on the
other.
>> One of the commonest charges brought against Islam
>> historically, and
>> as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant.
> I don't know that there's really any sweeping broad
> generalization to
> be made about Muslim tolerance which would be valid over many
> centuries of history in many different geographical areas --
> but one
> generalization which would be more or less true is that
> Muslims were
> consistently encouraged by their religion to attack and
> conquer all
> adjacent non-Muslim-ruled areas, and that Muslims decided
> among
> themselves how tolerant they would choose to be towards
> non-Muslims.
No. That tolerance was definitely dictated by Qur`an and
Muhammad`s (a.s.w.s) commands.
>> The Western Christians, till the arrival of the
>> Encyclopaedists in
>> the eighteenth century, did not know and did not Care to
>> know, what
>> the Muslim believed,
> Really? Then why was a professorship in the Arabic language
> (the
> Adams Professorship of Arabic) created at Cambridge University
> in
> England in the year 1632?
The purpose was not to learn about the Muslim beliefs and
practices per se, but rather to know the force behind the
Muslims in their fiercy resistance against The Crusaders as they
finally
kicked them out of the Holy Land.
> Most Muslims really had very little
> interest in what the remote northwestern barbarians of
> Christian
> Europe thought or felt until the eighteenth century (when they
> had
> already been militarily beaten by Europeans numerous times
> over many
> decades). Please do give me a list of Muslim visitors to
> Latin
> (Catholic and Protestant) Christian Europe prior to the
> eighteenth
> century! It will be a rather short list, and very few of them
> will
> have been motivated by intellectual curiosity about Christian
> Europeans...
There was definitely a lot of them around, though not all their
names and works are known to us. Ibn Jubayr, Al-Idrissi come to
mind. You also seem to ignore that Andalusia, Sicily and to some
extent North-Africa were the countries where many European later
scholars were taught by Muslims.
>> If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of
>> Christendom, in those days,
> Muslims knew very little and cared very little about "wild"
> Christians
> in Europe (the normal meaning of the word "Christendom", as
> opposed to
> Christianity) -- they knew much more about their "tame"
> Christians
> living within Muslim-ruled states.
LOL...Ibn Hazm of Cordoba lived and worked in Andalusia, he -
for
instance - kwew more about Latin Christianity than perhaps
As-Shahristany who to my knowledge never was in Europe.
The same can be said about Ibn Khaldun.
>> those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic,
>> but
>> utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not
>> have
>> taken place, for they were based on a complete
>> misapprehension.
> Was it a "misapprehension" that the Fatimid Caliph Hakim
> demolshed the
> Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1009 A.D.,
Al-Hakim and the whole Fatimid dynasty consisted of the batini
sect of Ismailis -e.g
Non-Muslims-!
> Was it a "misapprehension" that the early Muslims had
> conquered Egypt, Syria, and Western Iraq from the Christian
> Byzantine
> empire by means of imperialist colonialist wars of raw naked
> aggression and expansionism back in the 630s A.D.?
No, they just freed them from the persian and Byzantine tyranny.
Why are your complaining?
The majority of the folks welcomed them and were happy to live
under their rule and further accepted willingly Islam. They had
no Halliburton, nor a Georges Soros behind them nor any juicy
oil fields to steal. Thus, your polemic is just that what it is.
>> In the Qur'an I find two meanings (of a Kafir),
> In the Qur'an I find the following terms used by Muhammad to
> describe
> Christians:
You forgot the linguistic meaning. The second one is a legal
one.
> Kafir ("infidel") -- see Qur'an verse 5:72, where the second
> word is
> kafara (i.e. "he/they blaspheme"), which is said of
> Christians; this
> word is a closely-related verbal form derived from the same
> root and
> Arabic grammatical stem (1st stem of root KFR) as the
> participle Kafir.
> http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/5/5_72.htm
Do you deny the simple fact that Christians are unbelievers wrt.
to Islam?
> Mushrik ("polytheist") -- see Qur'an verse 5:72, where the
> word
> yushrik (literally "he makes a partner" for God, i.e. thinks
> that
> something other than God is divine) is applied to Christians;
> this
> word is a closely-related verbal form derived from the same
> root and
> Arabic grammatical stem (4th stem of root ShRK) as the
> participle Mushrik.
> http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/5/5_72.htm
Won´t you admit that they do in fact
associate Partners with God, i.e. The Holy Ghost and Jesus?
>> The former Scriptures had become obscure, the former Prophets
>> appeared mythical, so extravagant were the legends which were
>> told
>> concerning them,
> So Muhammad reduced this extravagance by including in the
> Qur'an the
> occultistic fairytale of Solomon's conversation with the ants,
Fairytale? Do you believe in Prophets` miracles? No? Then you
ought to deny Moses´ and Jesus`(as) miracles too! Simple.
> and
> legendary folktales (such as the Iron Wall and the muddy
> puddle in
> which the sun sets) taken from the Alexander Romance!!!
Prove it!
> I see...
No, you see absolutely nothing, nor are you able to see anything
either! Sorry.
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
<news:af75d5c0.05013...@posting.google.com>...
>
> One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically,
> and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant.
[snip numerous true historical examples of intolerance by Christendom
and/or the West]
It seems the general point of the article is that Christianity and/or
the West does not exactly have hands free of blood either, this is
true. Another point of the article is that many pockets of the Muslim
world were more tolerant towards minority religions than many parts of
pre-Enlightenment Europe. Okay. I doubt any honest person would deny
this. How does this negate the fact that there is a serious problem in
Islam with regard to intolerance?
> The two verses (2:255-256) of the Qur'an are supplementary. Where
> there is that realization of the majesty and dominion of Allah (SWT),
> there is no compulsion in religion.
An interesting conditional statement. Is it to be taken as a mere
material conditional, or a biconditional? In other words, can we assume
that where one does not find "the majesty and dominion of Allah" (e.g.
a land ruled by atheists or polytheists) the rule of "laa ikraha
fee'd-Deen" can be cast aside? Furthermore, it seems this is
representative of only a very specific interpretation of Islam. Other
interpretations hold that this verse that proclaims "laa ikraha
fee'd-Deen" has been "abrogated," and there are other interpretations
of Islam that may not say precisely that, yet seem to contradict it
nonetheless (e.g. having death sentences for apostates, et cetera).
> So much for the idolaters of Arabia, who had no real beliefs to
> oppose the teaching of Islam,
According to the Islamic histories, these Jahiloonytoonies also
ultimately had no ability to oppose the Muslims militarily either. The
way the Mushrikeen were allegedly treated seems to stand in conflict
with my notion of "tolerance". The fact that there have been many, many
brutal Christians, atheists or other assorted non-Muslims does not
change this fact.
> In Egypt the Copts were on terms of closest friendship with the
> Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, and they
> are on terms at closest friendship with the Muslims at the
> present day.
I hope we can chalk this false statement up to the author being merely
naive...
And hey, what does this have to do with a discussion about 'Eesa vis a
vis Eesho and Y'shua? Oh, that's right, nothing at all.
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
<news:36dknoF...@individual.net>...
>
> "´Isa" is the name given to Jesus (a.s) from the Almighty Allah
Well, there you go! I guess that settles the debate then, doesn't it?
> I`m not interested in such annoying linguistic debates
Of course you aren't, hence the reason you entered the thread with the
intention of reminding us that Christians too have some skeletons in
their historical closet.
> Fairytale? Do you believe in Prophets` miracles? No? Then
> you ought to deny Moses´ and Jesus`(as) miracles too! Simple.
Imagine a Hindu telling Gaby that Hannuman jumped over the ocean or
that Siva cut of Ganesh's head and then replaced it with the head of an
elephant. If Gaby responded with something along the lines of "grown
men don't believe such things," would it be refuted by noting the
fantastic claims made in the Qur'an and ahaadith? Or how about looking
at this another way: The Mahabharata claims the virgin Kunti gave birth
to a son without ever having known a man sexually, and the Qur'an
claims the virgin Maryam gave birth to a son without ever having known
a man sexually. Is it possible that one is a myth and the other not? Or
do they both have to be myths? We have two options, either (1) reject
Gaby's argument as absurd, or (2) conclude that Islam as well as
Christianity and Judaism, is filled with falsehoods. I'm cool with
either option.
gaby
>"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz"
><abuk...@yahoo.com> wrote:...
>>"gaby" wrote:...
>> "´Isa" is the name given to Jesus (a.s) from the Almighty
>> Allah
>Well, there you go! I guess that settles the debate then,
>doesn't it?
And there you go again with your guesswork!
Of course, this lengthy debate of yours is not settled yet nor
do I believe that it will ever be.
The question may be posed though: Was the name "´Isa" ever an
issue for Muslims? The answer is cristal clear, NO! Was it
further an issue for Muhammad`s (a.s.w.s) contemporary
Christians and Jews, or even the pagans? Answer: NO!
>> I`m not interested in such annoying linguistic debates
>Of course you aren't, hence the reason you entered the thread
>with the
>intention of reminding us that Christians
Who is "us"? Denis Giron is suddenly becoming Christian?
Miracle! miracle!
That must be again the holy cuckoo dwelling within you!
LOL
> too have some skeletons in
>their historical closet.
They in fact have mounts thereof, not just some!
>> Fairytale? Do you believe in Prophets` miracles? No? Then
>> you ought to deny Moses´ and Jesus`(as) miracles too! Simple.
There you go again with your silly analogies!
You still have learned nothing from your former debates!
friend
1MAN4ALL
raised.
1MAN4ALL
that you have raised.
1MAN4ALL
> What is this based on? The fact that Hebrew was not his first
language?
> All over the world, for millennia, there have been Jews who did not
> speak Hebrew as their first language, yet nonetheless had Hebrew
names.
> So, scratching this, I ask you what your assumption is based on.
I suggest that you read the next sentence that I had written which you
snipped:-)
> > because Aramaic was the language of Jews from as
> > early as the 6th century BC, the pronunciation of
> > Jesus' name has to be studied in the context of
> > that language.
>
> Fine, so please tell us how the name was pronounced in the first
> century. The only way I can think of that can get us close to
reaching
> an answer is seeing how the text was transliterated into European
> languages. Both the Septuagint and the NT gives us the impression
that
> the name was pronounced very similar to the way it is pronounced
today.
The problem that I have is that you are not reading my original
post--at least not carefully--and that's why I feel like I am wasting
my time here. I'll make one more attempt before giving up on you:- )
Let me reiterate and expand on what I had written earlier:
1. Nobody knows for sure how Jesus' own family pronounced his name.
2. There were several dialects and languages spoken during Jesus' time,
and it is very likely that he was called by different names by
different people. (See my original post for additional notes).
3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, which is still spoken today, and if one has to
guess how Jesus' name was pronounced, one has to find that in Aramaic,
not in Greek which, though spoken during Jesus' time, is very
different from Aramaic and can greatly distort Aramaic/Hebrew names.
Why have this bias in favor of Greek and use a secondary language when
the original language already exists?
4. Jesus' name in Aramaic is Eisho/Eishaw which was also pronounced as
Eiso/Eisaw. It is written as yodh-shin-wow-aih. The yodh in this case
is pronounced with an "ee' sound instead of "y" sound. And the 'aih'
(ayn) is pronounced as 'hamza.' This can be heard on these web
sites (courtesy of GabrilJB)
http://www.v-a.com/bible/aramaic-jesus.html ... eashoa in Aramaic
http://www.beith-morounoye.org/special/yeshu.wma ... Yeshu' in Aramaic
http://www.assyrianlanguage.com/imgf/jesus.au ... eesho in Aramaic
THOSE WHO CAN DETECT AN AYN IN THESE RECORDINGS HAS NO IDEA WHAT AYN
SOUNDS LIKE!
Even though at times it seems that you and Anonmoos regularly watch
Arabic Sesame Street and must have sponsored the letter AYN, there is
nothing sacred or important about this letter. See notes below.
5. Mandains who follow John the Baptist and claim to be descendants of
his original followers also call Jesus 'A'iso' and the guttural
'aih' (ayn) has the simple pronunciation of hamza. [Nöldeke's
Mand. Gram., Xxix and 55; lidzbarski. Mand. Liturgien,]
6. Jesus grew up in Galilee and we have historic evidence that
Galileans mispronounced the guttural sound 'ayn.' [Babylonian Talmud,
Eruvin 53a-b; Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot]. Very likely, Galileans
pronounced 'ayn' the way Mandeans now pronounce it, like 'hamza.'
7. Also in Talmud, Jesus' name is written as Yesu, without the 'ayn.'
Now, Anonmoos had made a point that this was done to insult Jesus only.
That is simply false because there are other people mentioned in the
Talmud who are also called Yesu (without the 'ayn'). And to this day,
Jews in Israel still write Jesus' name as Yesu (without the 'ayn').
Modern Jewish scholars now claim that none of the Yesu(s) mentioned in
the Talmud can possibly be Jesus. Most likely, the 'ayn' wasn't
there to begin with and like the Mandeans, Jews in pre-Talmudic times
pronounced the name with 'hamza' and thus omitted 'ayn.' [Why not
give Jews benefit of the doubt?]
8. Christians 'assume' that Jesus' name must have been
"Yeshua' which is derived from Yehoshua. According to them, Jews
must have dropped 'ha' and then dropped 'ayn'. This they
beleive because 'Yeshua' means, "saved" [some of them wrongly
believe that it means "salvation", which would be more in line with
their beliefs] but that is based on pure speculation, and there is no
historical evidence that Jesus was ever called "Yeshua' in his
lifetime.
9. The language that was spoken in Galilee was Aramaic (same as
Syriac), and that's the language that is spoken by many Jews in
Israel today.
10. The Septuagint and NT. Christians argue that Septuagint uses the
name "Iesous" for four people who are called Yehushua (Joshua) in
the old testament, and in the new testament Joshua was mentioned twice
and each time, it was translated as "Iesous" which is also the name
used for Jesus. So, Jesus' name must have been Yehushua. That is
faulty logic because Greek has no "sh" sound and whether one is
writing Eisho, Yesua or Joshua, it would all be written as
"Iesous." This also begs the question as to why Christians don't
use the word "Joshua" for Jesus."
11. The word Yahushua itself is derived from two root words Yehova and
Yasha3 (ayn at the end), which in Aramaic would have been Eashaw. The
same root word "yasha" appears in Arabic, but here there is no
'ayn' and is written as ya-shin-alif-hamza. This word itself is derived
from the old Semitic root word 'sha' (shin-alif-hamza) meaning
"willed." As I stated above, even though Mandaens have an 'ayn' at
the end of this word, they still pronounce it as hamza. Aramaic
speaking people do the same thing, as can be heard on the recordings,
the links of which I have provided above. So it follows that the 'ayn'
must have been a later addition to Hebrew/Aramaic language and should
be pronounced as hamza. Arabic, following the root word, has
'Eisaw' the way it should be written (without the ayn).
> > Why did the Aramaic speaking started calling Jesus
> > Eshoa/Eishaw when, according to you, his
> > name was Yeshua?
>
> Because languages and pronunciations evolve. Furthermore, had you
> actually paid attention to my post, you would have realized that some
> Aramaic speaking Christians, including those who put forth
> http://peshitta.org , also pronounced his name as Yeshua. Also, maybe
> we should focus on Jewish Aramaic, not later forms of Christian
> Aramaic.
I saw the page that you had referenced and what they were doing was to
provide a word-to-word translation, not transliteration. They
translated the Aramaic name of Jesus as Yeshua, which is now
recognizable by English-speaking Christians. Had they used the name
Eisho, Westerners would have been confused.
> > IT IS ONLY FROM THE 12TH CENTURY AD ONWARDS,
> > THAT JESUS NAME IN HEBREW IS
> > IDENTIFIED AS YESHU
> > (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu )
>
> Wikipedia is a terrible source. It is simply copy and paste of claims
> found on the net. Did you ever hear about the controversy when they
> quoted noneother than Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullah? See as follows:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wikipedia+abdul-khinzeer
>
> Nonetheless, had you read my post, you would know this claim is
false.
> The Septuagint and the NT shows us that the pronunciation of
> yod-shin-vav-ayn was actually pretty close to the way it is now. The
> only discrepancy seems to be the rendering of the shin as an 's'
> phoneme, which is very forgivable.
As I stated earlier, Wikipedia is only one source. My information on
this subject has come from a variety of sources. I had also
corresponded with at least two professors of Semitic languages who
teach in Israel. See also my comments above.
> > There are several theories as to why that
> > may have been the case, all ASSUMING that
> > Yeshu was derived from "Yehoshua," that first
> > Jews dropped HA and then AYN to show their
> > disrespect.
>
> The dropping of the ayn might have meant to be disrespectful
(maybe!),
> but the heh? Where did you get this? Copy.and.paste.from.the.netpedia
> again? The yod-shin-vav-ayn construction is found in the name of many
> Jews in both the TaNaKh and the "sefareem chitsoneem" (i.e.
apocryphal
> works, like Ben Sirach). It is not an insulting name. If we're just
> going to make assumptions, let's assume it might be a masculine
version
> of yod-shin-vav-ayn-heh (a la B'reshit 49, the furqan of the Targum
of
> Unqelos).
Why make assumptions when there are hard facts available, not only in
the original language which Jesus spoke (Aramaic) but also from Talmud
itself. Several people by the name of Yasu are mentioned in Talmud, and
the spelling is always Yod-Shin-Wow, not Yod-Shin-Wow-Ayn.
In the Tanakh, the name that is used is "Yahoushua," not Yeshua,
and it is used for only four people. (See Strong's Lexicon #03091.)
And the name is translated as Joshua in English. There is absolutely
NO evidence that Jesus was ever called Yahoushua.
Regarding Ben Sirach, the book, "Sophia Iesou hyiou Sirach" was
written almost two hundred years before Christ, and in Egypt. It is
assumed that the original title of the book was "Hokhmat Yeshua'
Ben-Sira," but that is not certain; the name may have been just
Iesou as the title suggests. As I stated above, Greek simply did not
have phonemes that corresponded with Hebrew/Aramaic, and Iesou can
point to Yeshua just as easily as Eisho/Eiso. Therefore, it is foolish
to use Greek as a means to derive original pronunciations.
> > Most likely, the reason it was 'dropped' was because it
> > wasn't there in the first place!
>
> Um, wrong. Again, yod-shin-vav-ayn is found in the TaNaKh, and is
even
> found in the Peshitta you call to witness. This is a ridiculous
theory.
Where is it found in Tanakh? The name in Tanakh is
YOD-HE-VAV-SHIN-VAV-AYN or YOD-HE-VAV-SHIN-AYN.
See:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1107490234-3832.html
> > Yeshu without the AYN means that the name was
> > pronounced as Yeesho [Esho in Aramaic], not Yeshoo.
> What is this based on? The difference between "oo" and "o" at the end
> is merely a difference between cholam and a shuruq, and either sound
is
> possible with a vav/waw.
You have a point. I take that back.
> > 3. You are presenting a fallacious argument by assuming
> > that every letter of Aramaic corresponds to some letter
> > in Arabic, so if the spellings don't match, there is a
> > problem.
> But there is a problem. It would be like if a name in one language
> started with a qof, and then another name in another language started
> with a kaf. These are two drastically different consonants, even if
> they produce the same phoneme to a speaker of a Western European
> language like English (admittedly, the difference between 'K' and 'Q'
> seems to be lost an Ashkenazeem today as well). The
'''''''''''ayn'''''''''''
is very, very
> important.
See my comments above.
> > Well, first of all, Aramaic has 22 letters and Arabic
> > has 28, so it's likely that some spellings would be
> > different in the two languages.
>
> Agreed, and thus it is acceptable when a chet is rendered as a Haa
here
> and a khaa there. So too, it is okay when the samekh becomes a seen.
> The difference between a yaa and an
'''''''''''ayn'''''''''''
are rather dramatic however.
See my comments above. Arabic also has SAAD which may not correspond
with anything in Hebrew. There could be dozens of words which sound
similar in Arabic and Hebrew but are spelled differently.
> > people whose name is Ahmad are often called Hamada,
> Ummm, 1Man, this is a terrible example in light of the fact that
these
> two names have the same triliteral root.
I thought that was a terrific example!
:-)
> Regardless, it seem this discussion has sunk yet again into "might
have
> beens". I thought you were going to positively assert that "Eesa" was
> the correct pronunciation, and then attempt to demonstrate such. Is
if
> possible that the name *evolved* over time into the Qur'anic version?
> Of course, in light of the fact that the name has evolved into many
> variants all over the world, and the fact that the name was probably
> used by some variant of Christian living in the time and area the
> Qur'an was first constructed in. But this is wholly different from
> claiming that the Qur'anic version is the correct pronunciation!
I think it is you and Mr. Anonmoos have "sunk" into ""might have
beens". I am staying as close to the facts as possible. See my points
above.
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
>...
Pax Vobis!
While I understand that you, like all of us, do not have an unlimited
amount of time to post to the net, I really wish you had taken into
account the following post:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/ab09ac16d83c4868
You simply responded to it by writing that I should see this post which
I am responding to, but almost nothing in this post touches on what was
covered in the post linked to above. Hopefully you'll reconsider the
points brought up in that post some time in the near future (though
there is no rush).
> I suggest that you read the next sentence that I had written which
you
> snipped:-)
The next sentence was 'Jesus' name may have been derived
from the Hebrew name "Yehoshua"'. That may be true, but that does not
negate it being a Hebrew name. As you have been told several times by
both me and Anonmoos, the name appears all over the TaNaKh (Anonmoos
was even kind enough to cite several verses for you). For example, see
Ezra 5:2.
> 2. There were several dialects and languages spoken
> during Jesus' time,
Fair enough, but if you're going to make an appeal to Mandaic or
Syriac, you're going to have to demonstrate that these were among the
dialects spoken in the time (and I'm confident you're not going to do
such). The source I cited in another post (the one linked to above),
Stevenson's work on Jewish Palestinian Grammar, sides with leaning on
Unqelos, the Yerushalmi, or even OT Aramaic for gleaning information
about the Aramaic of Jesus' time. Furthermore, as the post linked to
above shows, if we're going to make an appeal to the cry on the cross
(as you did), the best conclusion is that the Aramaic spoken by Jesus
was *VERY* close to Hebrew. These are points you have thus far ignored,
with all due respect.
> Why have this bias in favor of Greek and use a
> secondary language when the original language
> already exists?
Because, as you well know, we cannot be 100% certain how certain names
were pronounced in the first century. One way to get a notion of how a
name or word was pronounced in a Semitic language in a given time
period, which is admittedly not fool-proof but nonetheless worthwhile,
is to see how that word was transliterated into a European language
during that time period. This is the point of my appeal to the
Septuagint and NT.
> 4. Jesus' name in Aramaic is Eisho/Eishaw
You keep asserting this. Some Aramaic speakers today employ
pronunciations similar to this, and others *DON'T*. You're arbitrarily
picking the one that suits you best.
> 6. Jesus grew up in Galilee and we have historic
> evidence that Galileans mispronounced the guttural
> sound 'ayn.' [Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 53a-b;
> Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot].
I'll have to go to the library and check the reference to tractate
Eruvin (as the online version with the snunit site is giving me
trouble). I'll also check the Talmud for instances of yod-shin-vav-ayn,
vis a vis simply yod-shin-vav, as I believe you're mistaken when claim
that it does not appear there.
> Most likely, the 'ayn' wasn't there to begin with
Again, wrong. The ayn is there in the Peshitta, the ayn is there in the
TaNaKh, and if I'm not mistaken, the ayn is there in early Christian
inscriptions bearing the name.
> 8. Christians 'assume' that Jesus' name must have been
> "Yeshua' which is derived from Yehoshua. According to them, Jews
> must have dropped 'ha' and then dropped 'ayn'.
How Y'shua came out of Y'hoshua is a different discussion. Nonetheless,
the former does exist in the TaNaKh.
> 9. The language that was spoken in Galilee was Aramaic (same as
> Syriac), and that's the language that is spoken by many Jews in
> Israel today.
I'm sorry, what? Syriac is a form of Aramaic, but you're mistaken if
you think Syriac is the "same as" the Aramaic of first century
Palestine.
> Christians argue that Septuagint uses the
> name "Iesous" for four people who are called
> Yehushua (Joshua) in the old testament
Forget about what Christians may argue, and consult the arguments of
Anonmoos or myself directly. See how yod-shin-vav-ayn is rendered in
the Septuagint. If you need to know which verses (aside from the
already mentioned Ezra 5:2), you can take another look at the post
where Anonmoos was kind enought to list them for you:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/b0d65e1968a9c44f
> > Aramaic speaking Christians, including those who
> > put forth http://peshitta.org , also pronounced his
> > name as Yeshua. Also, maybe we should focus on Jewish
> > Aramaic, not later forms of Christian Aramaic.
>
> I saw the page that you had referenced and what they
> were doing was to provide a word-to-word translation,
> not transliteration.
The names are transliterated in the Aramaic way preferred by the
translator. Had you actually looked at the page, as you claimed, you
would have seen that all the names are transliterated. Or do you
believe that English speaking Christians call Jacob, Isaac, Abraham,
and Joseph "Yaqub, Aeshaq, Awraham & Yosip," respectively?
So again, you're making an appeal to the way Aramaic speakers pronounce
yod-shin-vav-ayn, but will only side with those Aramaic speakers that
pronounce it "Eesho". why not note the many Aramaic speakers (both
Jewish and Christian) that offer the pronunciation Y'shua/Yeshua? It
seems the decision to pick sides on your part is arbitrary if not
motivated by an agenda...
> In the Tanakh, the name that is used is "Yahoushua,"
> not Yeshua, and it is used for only four people.
As was noted above, Y'shua is found in the TaNaKh as well, including
the Aramaic portions, such as Ezra 5:2. Since you love making the
appeal to Strong's, try Hebrew #03442
> Arabic also has SAAD which may not correspond
> with anything in Hebrew.
See the letter tsade (in my original contribution I already gave the
example of tselot vs salaat). If you want a *rough* idea of the
corresponding letters in Arabic and Hebrew, see the following charts:
Arabic to Hebrew
http://www.lubienski.com/gifs/lang/arab-heb-chart.gif
Hebrew to Arabic
http://www.lubienski.com/gifs/lang/heb-arab-chart.gif
> > > people whose name is Ahmad are often called Hamada,
>
> > Ummm, 1Man, this is a terrible example in light of
> > the fact that these
> > two names have the same triliteral root.
>
> I thought that was a terrific example!
It is like using Menachem and Nachum to justify a switch from Nathan to
Mustafa.
In closing, please see my other post (linked to above), which attempts
to summarize your argument. If my understanding of your argument is
correct, then it is fallacious. If I am mistaken, you should elaborare
on what your argument is.
AnonMoos
Why do you need this third alias besides "hurrah" and "friend"?
>"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote:...
>> hur...@my-deja.com (hurrah) wrote:
>>>"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote:..
>>>> I've just uploaded to the web a page
>>>> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm which
>>>> contains specific information on the most accurate pronunciations
>>>> of the name of Jesus in certain Semitic languages.
>>>>1Man4All wrote:
>>>>> I don't see what's your problem is with Muslims using Easa?
>>>> I don't have any problems with Muslims using `Isa -- as long as
>>>> they don't try to claim that it's the authentic original
>>>> pronunciation of the name of Jesus (instead of being a highly
>>>> distorted and corrupted pronunciation, which it in fact is).
>>>> I'm actually more tolerant than you are -- I have no objections
>>>> to Muslims using `Isa, but I imagine you would have many
>>>> objections to Christians using "Mahomet" or "Mahound".
>>> Hmmm...your seem to be as tolerant as those you accuse of
>>> insulting Jesus (a.s) a few lines above. I am sure that your
>>> vitriolic attacks against the Prophet (a.s.w.s) don`t make your
>>> case true either.
>> I wouldn't say that Muhammad was any kind of thoroughly evil man,
>> but it's a simple fact (which can be ascertained from materials
>> preserved by Muslim historians themselves) that when he attained
>> power, he gave in to temptations to misuse that power on a number
>> of separate occasions.
> Who are these historians? Names? Quotes? Which material? Care to
> share with us? For instance??
Since I don't go around with a goal of blackening the name of
Muhammad, I don't have every single case to hand, but if you want to
see one case from Tabari which I discussed with 1MAN4ALL, look at
http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=41598F98.B9A58BD3%40io.com
There are plenty of others, if you choose to seek them out...
If I were merely a polemical controversialist (as you think I am),
then I would have all this material right at my fingertips, and would
trot it out tirelessly. But this is really missing the main point --
which is that Christians and Jews did not really preserve any
independent historical traditions about Muhammad's life, so that all
attacks on Muhammad (whether justified or unjustified), which are not
mere cursing or vituperation, are in fact based on source material
originally written by Muslims.
> Ah...that "BUT" again!
Since I adopt neither of the positions "Muhammad was perfect in every
humanly-possible way" nor "Muhammad was a uniquely vicious and
depraved criminal fraud", therefore my position will necessarily be
somewhat nuanced and qualified.
>> I don't go around with a goal of blackening the name of Muhammad,
>> but when people say that he was the best model or ideal pattern for
>> all humankind, then I vigorously resist such assertions, since
>> according to any solid framework of morality or ethics he simply
>> WASN'T any kind of best model or ideal pattern for all humanity.
> What kind of "solid framework of morality and ethics"? Set by whom?
> On whose behalf? Do share again with us?
How about Kant's "Categorical Imperative" of Universalizable Ethics,
or the theory of Natural Law? I have here an interesting book ("Basic
Ethics" by Thomas Higgins) which was written by a Jesuit priest, and
published with the official permission of the Catholic church. This
book is written from a definite Christian perspective, but it spends
very little time discussing the detailed interpretation of specific
Biblical verses. Instead it spends quite a bit of time developing a
theory of "Natural Law". Natural Law is defined as the principles of
morality or ethics which are binding on all humans at all times and
places, and are inherent or intrinsic in the order of the universe as
created by God. The interesting thing is that Natural Law is to some
degree independent of differences between religions -- i.e. the
universal basics of morality (what C.S. Lewis calls the "Tao" in his
book "The Abolition of Man") aren't exclusively tied to any one
religion (though salvation, which is quite a separate matter, may be).
By contrast, if I were to look at a traditional book of Islamic
ethics, then it would be bristling with numerous quotations and
interpretations of Qur'an verses, and there would be relatively little
"Natural Law" -- in the sense of laws which are neutral with respect
to the statuses of Muslim vs. non-Muslim, and/or laws arising more
from a working out philosophical first principles than from the
detailed exegesis of any particular Qur'an verse.
Here's a simple test of moral universalizability -- Muslims would
hardly tolerate behaviour such as allowing one's followers to have
four simultaneous wives while taking to oneself NINE simultaneous
wives, if anyone other than Muhammad himself had done this.
>> Here's a classic orientalist quote which I know you'll just love:
>> ;-)
>> "...the true Mohammed was really an Arabian of the
>> seventh-century, with (it may be) all the virtues of his time
>> and some in which he was beyond his time; [but] also with many
>> of the violence and sins of his time and environment: and that
>> therefore the claims made for him (but not by him) to be
>> humanity's beau-ideal and consummate example for ever, is a
>> pernicious one"
> LOL...typical orientalist balderdash with no substance.
It has a certain amount of rough-and-ready wisdom -- Muhammad may have
been better than most nomadic raiders and tribal chieftains of the
early 7th century A.D., but that doesn't mean that he's the best of
all humanity for all time.
>>> Meaning of MAHOUND Pronunciation: mu'hawnd Webster's 1913
>>> Dictionary Definition: \Ma`hound\, n. A contemptuous name for
>>> Mohammed; hence, an evil spirit; a devil. [Obs.]
>> The thing is, that Mahound and Mahomet were not actually originally
>> deliberately misspelled terms when they were first in used in the
>> English language (the 1200s-1300s A.D.).
> It was a deliberate, ill-willed and Muslim offending misspelling!
Sorry, but it wasn't. In the 17th century A.D. the form "Mahound"
(though not "Mahomet") was deliberately contemptuous, but in the
1200s-1300s, they just didn't know any better in England -- as you can
see from the following pre-18th century diverse spelling variations
taken from the OED dictionary entries for "Mahomet" and "Mahound":
Mahum
Mahun
Mahoun
Mahone
Mahowne
Mahownde
Mawhownus
Macamethe
Makomete
Machomete
Machomet
Machamyte
It's hard to fake ignorance like that! ;-)
>> Though the Englishmen of that time were undoubtedly contemptuous of
>> Muhammad (insofar as they were even aware of his existence), the
>> altered forms of his name were due to mere ignorance (and a long
>> chain of intermediate languages intervening between Arabic and
>> English during that period) -- not due to a deliberate intentional
>> insult.
> This is simply ridiculous.
No it's not. In the 1200's-1300's AD there was hardly anyone who was
literate in English (most Crusaders from England weren't), also
knowledgeable about Arabic, and resident in England. In order to
create a deliberately-offensive misspelling, you have to know what the
correct spelling of "Muhammad" is in the first place -- and hardly
anyone did at that time and place. Instead, they relied on the
neo-Latin form "Mahometus, Machometus" or the popular Old French
"Chanson de Roland" type form "Mahun, Mahom".
>> In that sense "Mahound" and "Mahomet" are quite different from
>> Yod-Shin-Waw in the Talmud, which was very intentionally distorted.
>> There's nothing wrong with `Isa in Arabic either, UNLESS someone
>> tries to claim that this is supposedly somehow the original and
>> most authentic name of Jesus -- something which is just as
>> ridiculous as someone claiming that Mahound is original and most
>> authentic name of Muhammad would be!
> "´Isa" is the name given to Jesus (a.s) from the Almighty Allah
> (s.w.t), neither you nor any other Christian apologist will be
> ever able to change this simple fact.
There are some mysteries of religion which science knows nothing
about, but unfortunately for you, the name of Jesus is not one of
them. If we apply the methods of scientific linguistic historical
reconstruction to all the available evidence, then one is lead to the
conclusion that the original 1st. century Hebrew and/or Armaic form of
the name of Jesus was that shown in the first lines of the graphic at
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm , or perhaps a
very slight variation of this (a variation in the length of the vowel
of the first syllable perhaps, but NOT any variation in the position
of the `Ayin consonant!). Gursey is the other one with substantial
linguistic knowledge in this debate, and he agrees.
>> You know a quite a bit of Arabic, but you really know no
>> linguistics or Hebrew or Aramaic, so that it's hard to see how you
>> can make a substantive contribution to a discussion about the
>> original linguistic phonetic form of the name of Jesus. (But go
>> ahead and surprise me!)
> I`m not interested in such annoying linguistic debates
In other words, you know so little about linguistics, that you have
almost nothing to contribute; and you also have very little feeling
for what is linguistically implausible or plausible.
> nor am I the one who incessantly brags about his qualification as
> you used to do.
Not really; I mostly only discuss the subject in reply to 1MAN4ALL's
truly annoying attempts at needling -- for some reason 1MAN4ALL
insists on examining my "credentials", but never examines Shibli
Zaman's credentials, nor his own credentials... I've always admitted
that you know more of the Arabic language than I do.
> the discrepancy between your pseudo-scientific argumentation on one
> hand and your infamous insults towards Muhammad (a.s.w.s)on the
> other.
Whatever -- my "infamous insults" are always based on source material
preserved by Muslims themselves (never anything of the "Mahomed wuz a
goat fornicator!1!" type). I only use them when someone makes
extravagant claims about Muhammad's perfection and/or chooses to attack
Christianity.
>> Meanwhile, those Muslims who complain about non-Muslims using the
>> spelling "Mohammed" instead of "Muhammad" in English, but see nothing
>> wrong with `Isa for Jesus, are basically either ignorant or hypocrites.
Are you listening?
>>> The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in
>>> the eighteenth century, did not know and did not Care to know,
>>> what the Muslim believed,
>> Really? Then why was a professorship in the Arabic language (the
>> Adams Professorship of Arabic) created at Cambridge University in
>> England in the year 1632?
> The purpose was not to learn about the Muslim beliefs and practices
> per se, but rather to know the force behind the Muslims in their
> fiercy resistance against The Crusaders
Umm, you do know that 1632 is around 350 years after the last Crusades
came to an end, don't you???
>> Most Muslims really had very little interest in what the remote
>> northwestern barbarians of Christian Europe thought or felt until
>> the eighteenth century (when they had already been militarily
>> beaten by Europeans numerous times over many decades). Please do
>> give me a list of Muslim visitors to Latin (Catholic and
>> Protestant) Christian Europe prior to the eighteenth century! It
>> will be a rather short list, and very few of them will have been
>> motivated by intellectual curiosity about Christian Europeans...
> There was definitely a lot of them around, though not all their
> names and works are known to us. Ibn Jubayr, Al-Idrissi come to
> mind. You also seem to ignore that Andalusia, Sicily and to some
> extent North-Africa were the countries where many European later
> scholars were taught by Muslims.
Andalusia and Sicily underwent periods of Muslim rule. I don't
consider anyone who visited those countries during the period of
Muslim rule to be a visitor to the countries of "Christendom".
>>> those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but
>>> utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have
>>> taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension.
>> Was it a "misapprehension" that the Fatimid Caliph Hakim demolished
>> the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1009 A.D.,
> Al-Hakim and the whole Fatimid dynasty consisted of the batini sect
> of Ismailis -e.g Non-Muslims-!
Thank you for informing me that you've declared takfir against the Aga
Khan and his ancestors!! -- however, from the Christian point of view,
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by those who claimed to
be followers of Muhammad, and followed most of the same daily religious
rituals that Sunni Muslims do...
>> Was it a "misapprehension" that the early Muslims had conquered
>> Egypt, Syria, and Western Iraq from the Christian Byzantine empire
>> by means of imperialist colonialist wars of raw naked aggression
>> and expansionism back in the 630s A.D.?
> No, they just freed them from the persian and Byzantine tyranny.
And subjected them to an Arab tribal Umayyad tyranny.
> They had no Halliburton, nor a Georges Soros behind them nor any
> juicy oil fields to steal.
The Umayyad Caliphate was a classic colonialist state, in which
tribute or tax revenues were extracted from the non-Arabic-speaking
non-Muslim inhabitants of Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia, and then
redistributed to Arabs who lived somewhat apart from the "native"
populations. In some cases, the Umayyads actually _discouraged_
conversions to Islam among the "natives", since such conversions would
reduce tax revenues!
>> Was it a "misapprehension" that after the battle of Manzikert in
>> 1071 A.D., the Turks looked likely to do the same thing for what
>> was left of the Byzantine empire, so that the Latin Christians
>> would then be "flanked" by being in direct contact with Muslim
>> states along two fronts simultaneously, in both the Balkans and in
>> Spain? (A very realistic fear at the time, and one which came true
>> several centuries later -- but not before the Christians had gained
>> the military upper hand in Spain, fortunately). The Europeans of
>> 1095 had apprehensions about the future survival of Christendom
>> which had some reasonable basis in fact, and the Crusades seemed
>> like a preemptive direct strike into the heart of Islamic territory
>> which would return Christian holy sites to Christian control. The
>> Crusades had their fanatical aspect, but they also had an aspect of
>> sober military strategy in defense of the Christian "Ummah".
>>> The former Scriptures had become obscure, the former Prophets
>>> appeared mythical, so extravagant were the legends which were told
>>> concerning them,
>> So Muhammad reduced this extravagance by including in the Qur'an
>> the occultistic fairytale of Solomon's conversation with the ants,
> Fairytale? Do you believe in Prophets` miracles? No? Then you
> ought to deny Moses´ and Jesus`(as) miracles too! Simple.
I really don't want to get into a general discussion on miracles; I
was just pointing out that if one of Muhammad's goals in creating
Islam was to reduce the "mythical and extravagant" element, then in
many cases he went about this task in an extremely strange way!
>> and legendary folktales (such as the Iron Wall and the muddy puddle
>> in which the sun sets) taken from the Alexander Romance!!!
> Prove it!
Some versions of the "Alexander Romance" are on-line; why not read
them and draw your own conclusions?
--
Hamas motto: لا إله لهم
إلا الموت،
«حماس» رسول
الموت (The death-worshipping cult)
AnonMoos
> In the Tanakh, the name that is used is "Yahoushua," not Yeshua,
> and it is used for only four people.
Now you seem to be returning to the nonsense of the crackpot
"Jesus-Tetragrammaton" cultists. Please don't!
> And the name is translated as Joshua in English.
When it's spelled with He -- not when it's spelled without He in the
books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.
>>> Most likely, the reason it was 'dropped' was because it wasn't
>>> there in the first place!
>> Um, wrong. Again, yod-shin-vav-ayn is found in the TaNaKh, and is
>> even found in the Peshitta you call to witness. This is a
>> ridiculous theory.
> Where is it found in Tanakh? The name in Tanakh is
> YOD-HE-VAV-SHIN-VAV-AYN or YOD-HE-VAV-SHIN-AYN.
I possess the Bible in the original Hebrew, and whenever I look up the
following passages I can see Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin (i.e. Yeshu` -- or
Yeshua` as it would have been in pronounced in later Hebrew): Ezra
2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 5:2, 8:33;
Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1,
12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles
31:15. Of course, chapter 5 of the book of Ezra is written in the
Aramaic language, so that when Yeshu` appears in Ezra 5:2 it's
already adapted to Aramaic (though a late Persian "Official" Aramaic,
instead of 1st. century A.D. Galilean or Judean Aramaic).
> See:
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1107490234-3832.html
That's a search for Joshua, not Jeshua (as Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin appears
in the Old Testament of the King James Bible). Here's Jeshua:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/j/1107563493-9772.html
AnonMoos
> Even though at times it seems that you and Anonmoos regularly watch
> Arabic Sesame Street and must have sponsored the letter AYN, there
> is nothing sacred or important about this letter.
The `Ayn sound may not be more important or "sacred" than any other
sound in Arabic, but the fact remains that in the Arabic language,
`Ayn is a CONSONANT SOUND LIKE ANY OTHER ARABIC CONSONANT SOUND. If
you wouldn't transcribe Muslim as "Uslim", then don't transcribe `Isa
without its `Ayn consonant sound at the beginning -- it's as simple as
that. The ` in `Isa (or the 9 in 9isa or the 3 in 3isa, if you choose
to use one of those alternative transcriptions) is no less a consonant
than the M in Muslim.
If you give me a claimed Aramaic transcription such as "Eesho", then I
really have no idea what to make of it until and unless you tell me
where the `Ayn consonant is located. Leaving out all `Ayn consonants
is simply not an acceptable practice when attempting to participate in
a linguistic discussion -- and at this point, both Giron and myself
are growing increasingly suspicious about how your sloppy
transcriptions make it easier for you to avoid trying to explain where
the word-initial `Ayn of `Isa came from! See below:
AnonMoos <anon...@io.com> wrote:
|"1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|> Most likely, the reason it was 'dropped' was because it wasn't
|> there in the first place! Yeshu without the AYN
| Then why does the `Ayn consonant (or `E consonant, as it's called in
| that language) appear in the Peshitta which you're so fond of citing??
| Go to http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm , and look
| at the line of the diagram of Aramaic; the leftmost symbol on that line
| (looking like scissors cutting through cloth) is the letter `E (`Ayn).
| Why does that Aramaic `Ayn consonant in the name of Jesus even
| exist at all, according to your theory?? Please do explain!!
| And where does the initial `Ayn in `Isa come from, according to your
| theory? You can hardly claim that it existed in Hebrew or Aramaic!
--
1MAN4ALL
Read points No. 5,6,7 and 11 from my last post.
gaby
"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote:...
> "gaby" <cl...@witty.com> wrote:
> Why do you need this third alias besides "hurrah" and
> "friend"?
The same question was already answered a few weeks ago. Wasn't
it?
[some line snipped for brevity]
>>> I wouldn't say that Muhammad was any kind of thoroughly evil
>>> man,
>>> but it's a simple fact (which can be ascertained from
>>> materials
>>> preserved by Muslim historians themselves) that when he
>>> attained
>>> power, he gave in to temptations to misuse that power on a
>>> number
>>> of separate occasions.
>> Who are these historians? Names? Quotes? Which material? Care
>> to
>> share with us? For instance??
> Since I don't go around with a goal of blackening the name of
> Muhammad, I don't have every single case to hand, but if you
> want to
> see one case from Tabari which I discussed with 1MAN4ALL, look
> at
> http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=41598F98.B9A58BD3%40io.com
> There are plenty of others, if you choose to seek them out...
I see nothing substantial that thread except the simple fact
that
you
cited Tarikh at-Tabari as your source, while 1Man4All tried to
refute you. At-Tabari in his Tarikh clearly stated in his intro
that all reports written down in his work have been collected by
him without any veracity check of those reports nor of the
truthfulness of their sources. In other words he didn't use the
Riwaya method while collecting those narrations and didn't want
to be taken accountable for it. Hence, his work contains
verified reports as well as fictitious stories. So you may in no
way pass any judgement on Muhammad (a.s.w.s.) solely based on
likely spurious narrations.
> If I were merely a polemical controversialist (as you think I
> am),
> then I would have all this material right at my fingertips,
> and would
> trot it out tirelessly.
I am sure you have enough material. The malicious
Bernard Lewis is one of your beloved sources. Isn't he?
> But this is really missing the main point --
> which is that Christians and Jews did not really preserve any
> independent historical traditions about Muhammad's life, so
> that all
> attacks on Muhammad (whether justified or unjustified), which
> are not
> mere cursing or vituperation, are in fact based on source
> material
> originally written by Muslims.
...a source material that they distort and manipulate at will in
order to vilify Islam and Muslims, one might add.
[snip]
>>> I don't go around with a goal of blackening the name of
>>> Muhammad,
>>> but when people say that he was the best model or ideal
>>> pattern for
>>> all humankind, then I vigorously resist such assertions,
>>> since
>>> according to any solid framework of morality or ethics he
>>> simply
>>> WASN'T any kind of best model or ideal pattern for all
>>> humanity.
>> What kind of "solid framework of morality and ethics"? Set by
>> whom?
>> On whose behalf? Do share again with us?
> How about Kant's "Categorical Imperative" of Universalizable
> Ethics,
Just an opinion of a philosopher and a mortal being , that is
neither a revealed and absolute truth nor a universal one.
> or the theory of Natural Law?
This theory is -like you say- just "a theory".
The problem with the theory of the "natural law" is that many
thinkers and philosophers, from the good old Greeks to those of
the Renaissance till nowadays never agreed upon one single
definition of this famous natural law. What makes it binding on
all human being? There's no single formula which states the real
origins of this law, as you say it's just a theory. The case of
such treatises is just similar to our famous Mu'tazila in their
vain effort to find a common formula wrt. to whether "The Good"
and "The Devil" are recognizable by the rational means or only
after the divine revelation. It rather reminds me of the good
old greek question:" What was first the Chicken or the egg?".
> By contrast, if I were to look at a traditional book of
> Islamic
> ethics, then it would be bristling with numerous quotations
> and
> interpretations of Qur'an verses, and there would be
> relatively little
> "Natural Law" -- in the sense of laws which are neutral with
> respect
> to the statuses of Muslim vs. non-Muslim, and/or laws arising
> more
> from a working out philosophical first principles than from
> the
> detailed exegesis of any particular Qur'an verse.
There's no such thing as "natural law" wrt. to ethics for
instance.
No such thing called "The Natural Law" does exist at all, for
the simple reason that "any ethical value" commonly accepted in
one society in some period of time may be abhorrent and
despicable to another society in the same period of time or to
the same society in a different period of time.
No philosopher on this world can claim that what he perceives as
"a natural law", is
universal in its nature and therefore binding on all human
beings.
[some snip again]
The King Marsilius holds the place,
Who loveth not God, nor seeks His grace:
He prays to Apollin, and serves Mahound;
But he saved him not from the fate he found.
[Extrait de "La chanson der Roland"]
Better read more history than defend the indefensible.
s. above.
>>> There's nothing wrong with `Isa in Arabic either, UNLESS
>>> someone
>>> tries to claim that this is supposedly somehow the original
>>> and
>>> most authentic name of Jesus -- something which is just as
>>> ridiculous as someone claiming that Mahound is original and
>>> most
>>> authentic name of Muhammad would be!
>> "´Isa" is the name given to Jesus (a.s) from the Almighty
>> Allah
>> (s.w.t), neither you nor any other Christian apologist will
>> be
>> ever able to change this simple fact.
> There are some mysteries of religion which science knows
> nothing
> about, but unfortunately for you, the name of Jesus is not one
> of
> them.
There you go again with your mysteries. What is so mysterious
with "'Isa"?
> If we apply the methods of scientific linguistic historical
> reconstruction to all the available evidence,
Your methods consists rather of "maybes", that is, its more
conjectural than scientific.
>>> You know a quite a bit of Arabic, but you really know no
>>> linguistics or Hebrew or Aramaic, so that it's hard to see
>>> how you
>>> can make a substantive contribution to a discussion about
>>> the
>>> original linguistic phonetic form of the name of Jesus.
>>> (But go
>>> ahead and surprise me!)
>
>> I`m not interested in such annoying linguistic debates
> In other words, you know so little about linguistics, that you
> have
> almost nothing to contribute; and you also have very little
> feeling
> for what is linguistically implausible or plausible.
BS. If I had irrefutable proofs of how Jesus (a.s) was
definitely called in
his lifetime on earth, I would indeed have said much about him.
Unfortunately, neither you nor Abdulkhinzeer have ever presented
a solid evidence - whether linguistic or otherwise - upon which
we could further build any Qur'an criticism. As I previously
said, you presented a mere guesswork that you incessantly call
"scientific".
>> nor am I the one who incessantly brags about his
>> qualification as
>> you used to do.
> Not really; I mostly only discuss the subject in reply to
> 1MAN4ALL's
> truly annoying attempts at needling -- for some reason
> 1MAN4ALL
> insists on examining my "credentials", but never examines
> Shibli
> Zaman's credentials, nor his own credentials... I've always
> admitted
> that you know more of the Arabic language than I do.
The problem with you guys is that anyone is eager to brag about
his own credentials. This is not the purpose of any fruitful
debate. BTW, I never questioned your credentials.
[snip]
>>> Really? Then why was a professorship in the Arabic language
>>> (the
>>> Adams Professorship of Arabic) created at Cambridge
>>> University in
>>> England in the year 1632?
>> The purpose was not to learn about the Muslim beliefs and
>> practices
>> per se, but rather to know the force behind the Muslims in
>> their
>> fiercy resistance against The Crusaders
> Umm, you do know that 1632 is around 350 years after the last
> Crusades
> came to an end, don't you???
Um....yep.
Never read the origins of Orientalism? Did you?
[snip]
>> There was definitely a lot of them around, though not all
>> their
>> names and works are known to us. Ibn Jubayr, Al-Idrissi come
>> to
>> mind. You also seem to ignore that Andalusia, Sicily and to
>> some
>> extent North-Africa were the countries where many European
>> later
>> scholars were taught by Muslims.
> Andalusia and Sicily underwent periods of Muslim rule. I
> don't
> consider anyone who visited those countries during the period
> of
> Muslim rule to be a visitor to the countries of "Christendom".
Well, I think al Baghdadi (?) was one who travelled cross Europe
and
vistited Scandinavia [Known at that time as Bilad ar-Rus]
I said too that most of the works of the travellers through
Europe are not known to us
yet!
>>>> those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic,
>>>> but
>>>> utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not
>>>> have
>>>> taken place, for they were based on a complete
>>>> misapprehension.
>>> Was it a "misapprehension" that the Fatimid Caliph Hakim
>>> demolished
>>> the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1009 A.D.,
>> Al-Hakim and the whole Fatimid dynasty consisted of the
>> batini sect
>> of Ismailis -e.g Non-Muslims-!
> Thank you for informing me that you've declared takfir against
> the Aga
> Khan and his ancestors!!
Nope, I didn't. All Sunnis agree that the Ismailis are not
Muslims. So what's your Problem? Additionally, Agha Khan, like
his ancestor al Hakim, thinks he's God's incarnate.
> -- however, from the Christian point of view,
> the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by those who
> claimed to
> be followers of Muhammad, and followed most of the same daily
> religious
> rituals that Sunni Muslims do...
Whatever. The commands of The Prophet (a.s.w.s), the legacy of
his companions and Umar's (ra) contract with Sofronius are
binding upon all Muslims. Whoever doesn't act according to them,
has betrayed Allah (swt) and his Prophet (as). Simple.
[snip]
>> They had no Halliburton, nor a Georges Soros behind them nor
>> any
>> juicy oil fields to steal.
> The Umayyad Caliphate was a classic colonialist state,
Nonsense. You maybe don't know what colonialism was and is
about.
> in which
> tribute or tax revenues were extracted from the
> non-Arabic-speaking
> non-Muslim inhabitants of Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia, and
> then
> redistributed to Arabs who lived somewhat apart from the
> "native"
> populations.
Tribute was collected for the state treasury and redistributed
to
all citizens.
> In some cases, the Umayyads actually _discouraged_
> conversions to Islam among the "natives", since such
> conversions would
> reduce tax revenues!
In some cases, yes. But that was the wrong policy.
[snip]
>>> So Muhammad reduced this extravagance by including in the
>>> Qur'an
>>> the occultistic fairytale of Solomon's conversation with the
>>> ants,
>> Fairytale? Do you believe in Prophets` miracles? No? Then you
>> ought to deny Moses´ and Jesus`(as) miracles too! Simple.
> I really don't want to get into a general discussion on
> miracles;
But this is exactly, what you call fairytale is about.
>>> and legendary folktales (such as the Iron Wall and the muddy
>>> puddle
>>> in which the sun sets) taken from the Alexander Romance!!!
>
>> Prove it!
> Some versions of the "Alexander Romance" are on-line; why not
> read
> them and draw your own conclusions?
I have read them almost all, but what makes you think that "Dhul
Qarnain" story
is about "Alexander The Great"? Ibn Ishaq's Sira? Well, he is
wrong!
1MAN4ALL
> "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the Tanakh, the name that is used is "Yahoushua," not Yeshua,
> > and it is used for only four people.
My mistake. I was thinking of Torah but referring to Tanakh, which
includes Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim.
> Now you seem to be returning to the nonsense of the crackpot
> "Jesus-Tetragrammaton" cultists. Please don't!
>
> > And the name is translated as Joshua in English.
>
> When it's spelled with He -- not when it's spelled without He in the
> books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.
Arrright. But it still does not make any sense. In the English Bible,
Yahowshuwa is transliterated as Joshua and Yeshuwa is transliterated as
Jeshua. So if Jesus' name is Yeshuwa, why not call him Jeshua or why
not call all Yeshuwa(s) Jesus?
Ezra-Nehemiah was written in 360-400 years before Jesus was born. Parts
of the book were also written in Aramaic. If you go back to my original
post in this thread, you will find that the period of Middle Aramaic
started around 200 BC. So the language in Palestine was going through
great changes, and it is difficult to assume that the name Yeshua
retained its pronunciation and didn't become Eisho/Eiso as we later
find ample evidence of it in Aramaic.
Where is the direct evidence that Jesus was called Yeshua, if you
ignore Greek which is of no help at all because Yeshua/Eisho/Eiso etc.
are all written as Iesous?
As I keep pointing out, Jesus must have been called by different names
by different people because of various dialects and languages that
existed at that time. So his name in Hebrew could have been "Ya'asu"
(Yod-Ayn-Sin-Wow; derived from root word 'asah; name is also used in
Ezra 10:37 and means "whom God created"); in Aramaic, Easho/Easo; in
Greek, Iesou; In Mandaen, A'iso; and in Arabic, Easa.
AnonMoos
>>> And the name is translated as Joshua in English.
>> When it's spelled with He -- not when it's spelled without He in the
>> books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, as in the passages Ezra 2:2,
>> 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 5:2, 8:33; Nehemiah
>> 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8,
>> 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15.
> Arrright. But it still does not make any sense. In the English Bible,
> Yahowshuwa
Nope, it's Yehoshua` (only the crackpot "Jesus-Tetragrammaton" cultists
use "Yahowshuwa"[sic!]).
> is transliterated as Joshua and Yeshuwa
Nope, Yeshua`
> is transliterated as Jeshua. So if Jesus' name is Yeshuwa, why not
> call him Jeshua or why not call all Yeshuwa(s) Jesus?
I already explained this in mind-numbing length in a previous post:
In Greek and Latin Bibles, and pre-Renaissance non-Semitic-language
Bible translations which depended on Greek or Latin texts, the
Yeshua`s of the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles _DID_ in fact
have their names trancribed as Iesous (Greek), Jesus (Latin) etc. The
same would have been true for Wyclife's medieval English-language
Bible translation, I presume, and also for any pre-20th century
Catholic English-language Bible translations... The English-language
form "Jeshua" didn't come into existence until the English Renaissance
(16th century A.D. or early 17th), when Protestant Bible translators
sought to go back to the original Hebrew when translating the Old
Testament into English. In the process, a lot of Latinized forms from
the Vulgate (Latin Bible) were replaced with forms closer to Hebrew,
so that "Noe" became "Noah", "Isaias" became "Isaiah", etc. In the
same process, the "Jesus" (or similar) of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles
became "Jeshua" -- but the English transcribed version of the names of
Jesus of Nazareth and a few other very prominent and familiar Biblical
figures (such as Solomon) were not similarly altered by reference to
the original Hebrew. (There was also some reluctance to Hebraize New
Testament names, since the New Testament is in Greek.)
So the English Renaissance Bible translators in fact created some
inconsistencies when they did not apply "back-to-Hebrew" principle
for Biblical proper names in a completely thoroughoing and consistent
manner. Learn to deal with it.
> Where is the direct evidence that Jesus was called Yeshua, if you
> ignore Greek which is of no help at all
Actually, the adaptation of the name of Jesus into Greek tells us a
hell of a lot more about the VOWELS of the name than does any Aramaic
writing until the full systems of Syriac vowel diacritics started
being invented beginning ca. 500 A.D. And of course, SYRIAC vowels of
500 A.D. are not necessarily of very direct relevance to the Western
Aramaic vowels of the 1st century A.D.
> As I keep pointing out, Jesus must have been called by different
> names by different people because of various dialects and languages
> that existed at that time. So his name in Hebrew could have been
> "Ya'asu" (Yod-Ayn-Sin-Wow;
That would be a plural verb which means "They do" or "They make".
PLURAL verbs were not generally used in Hebrew names. (You couldn't
say this would be an Aramaic name, because root `Ayn-Sin-He doesn't
really occur in Aramaic.) So it's unsurprising that the Masorah
(textual marginal note) corrects the spelling from Yod-`Ayn-Shin-Waw
to Yod-`Ayn-Shin-Yod (or "Jaasai", as the JPS Tanakh translation has
it). It's typical of your "desperately clutch at any straws" strategy
that you pick up on the UNCORRECTED spelling of an obscure hapax
legomenon in order to try to deny well-attested facts about a much
more frequently-occurring name!
> used in Ezra 10:37 and means "whom God created");
Whether spelled Yod-`Ayn-Shin-Waw or Yod-`Ayn-Shin-Yod, it simply
cannot and does not mean "whom God created" in Hebrew.
AnonMoos
> Read points No. 5,6,7 and 11 from my last post.
Why should I read through that pile of nonsense again when I know very
well that it doesn't contain any articulate attempted defense of the
linguistically-indefensible practice of leaving all `Ayn consonants
out of all transcriptions (except for a few transcriptions that you
cut-and-paste from random web-pages written by other people)?
zev
>Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
>6. Jesus grew up in Galilee and we have historic evidence that
>Galileans mispronounced the guttural sound 'ayn.' [Babylonian Talmud,
>Eruvin 53a-b; Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot]. Very likely, Galileans
>pronounced 'ayn' the way Mandeans now pronounce it, like 'hamza.'
Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 53b says Galileans pronounced 'ayn' as 'aleph'
but this was written hundreds of years after Jesus lived.
Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot is more useful perhaps
although there's a large gap there also.
Can you give the page you are referring to?
Zev
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
>
> In the English Bible, Yahowshuwa is transliterated as
> Joshua and Yeshuwa is transliterated as
> Jeshua.
This happens with a few names in most English translations of the Bible
(exempli gratia: Judah vs Judas, Jacob vs James, et cetera). It is
irrelevant to the discussion about proper pronunciation of
yod-shin-vav-ayn (or at least the pronunciation employed by people in
Jesus' time and location).
> Ezra-Nehemiah was written in 360-400 years before Jesus
> was born. Parts of the book were also written in Aramaic.
> If you go back to my original post in this thread, you
> will find that the period of Middle Aramaic
> started around 200 BC. So the language in Palestine was
> going through great changes, and it is difficult to
> assume that the name Yeshua retained its pronunciation
> and didn't become Eisho/Eiso as we later
> find ample evidence of it in Aramaic.
It seems easy enough for you to assume it was Eesho because *SOME*
Christian Aramaic speakers pronounce it that way, but you give us no
indication that this is the way it was pronounced in the time of Jesus.
If we're just going to arbitrarily point to an Aramaic pronunciation,
we could go with Y'shua just as easily as Eesho. If you're going to
tell us what the Aramaic in Jesus' time was like, you have to provide
arguments. Simply appealing to much later forms like Mandaic or Syriac
will not do. Appealing to the cry on the cross also doesn't work in
your favor (as was shown in another post), because it gives the
impression that the Aramaic spoken then was *very* close to Hebrew.
> Where is the direct evidence that Jesus was called
> Yeshua, if you ignore Greek which is of no help at
> all because Yeshua/Eisho/Eiso etc.
> are all written as Iesous?
What are you talking about? The Greek is helpful because it shows how
the text was transliterated in the time the Greek text in question
originated. The transliteration reflects the pronunciation.
> As I keep pointing out, Jesus must have been called
> by different names by different people
That doesn't seem to be obvious, as you can have a situation where
speakers of different languages, but the same faith, employ the same
pronunciation of names. This is very common within Judaism. Note that
"Eesho" does not appear in any Jewish text. This is a Christian
pronunciation.
> So his name in Hebrew could have been "Ya'asu"
> (Yod-Ayn-Sin-Wow; derived from root word 'asah;
> name is also used in Ezra 10:37 and means "whom
> God created"); in Aramaic
Based on what? Can you cite one, just one, Aramaic text that offers
this spelling? The dispute is not the spelling, but the pronunciation.
If we're just throwing random spellings out there, his name could have
been Chaim Goldberg (chet-yod-yod-mem
gimel-vav-lamed-dalet-bet-reysh-gimel), which makes sense since he
presented the GOLDEN rule and other secrets to eternal LIFE in his
sermon on the MOUNT.
With that, let me return to your post from February 3rd:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/756933c15b366453
I am referring in particular to the following portions:
> Jesus grew up in Galilee and we have historic
> evidence that Galileans mispronounced the
> guttural sound 'ayn.' [Babylonian Talmud,
> Eruvin 53a-b; Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot].
> Very likely, Galileans pronounced 'ayn'
> the way Mandeans now pronounce it, like 'hamza.'
Tnis was interesting, so I wanted to investigate it further. The snunit
site is back up, and so I was able to read Eiruvin 53a online (the
Jewish library was closed yesterday for Shabat, and today is Sunday):
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/l/l2205.htm#053a
The first significant part reads:
"B'nei Y'hoodah shehiqpeedoo al l'shonam nitqayymah Toratam b'tadam.
B'nei Galeel she-lo hiqpeedoo al l'shonam lo nitqayymah Toratam
b'yadam."
"[There are] sons of Judah who are particular with their language, [so]
they retain their Torah in their hands. [There are] sons of Galilee who
are not paticular with their language, [so] they do not retain their
Torah in their hands."
A little below that it reads:
"B'nei Y'hoodah d'dayyqei leeshnaa umitnchei l'hu simnaa nitqayymah
Toratan b'yadan. B'nei Galeel d'lo dayyqei leeshnaa v'lo mitnchei l'hu
simnaa lo nitqayymah Toratan b'yadam."
"[Those] sons of Judah who are precise with language and assign symbols
to it retain their Torah in their hands. [Those] sons of Galilee who
are not precise with language and do not assign symbols to it do not
retain their Torah in their hands."
Then in Eiruvin 53b there is more:
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/l/l2205.htm#053b
This is the portion that is most relevant to what 1Man4All said above:
"D'hahu bar Galeelaa [...] v'amar l'hu amar l'maan? amar l'maan? Amroo
leih G'leelaah shoteh, chamar l'meercab o chamar l'meeshtee? 'Amar
lmeelbash o 'imar l'rrtksaah?"
"There was this Galilean [...] and he said to them who has an amar? Who
has an amar? They said to him foolish Galilean, chamaar [donkey] to
ride on or chamr [wine] to drink? 'Amar [wool] to wear or 'Imar [sheep]
to slaughter?"
The last part, in 53b, supports what 1Man was saying because it states
that some (apparently illiterate) Galileans were so poor with their
pronunciation that one could not discern the use of chet and ayn (and
possibly alef too). But the point of the story overall is that these
pronunciations *ARE* very important. Furthermore, the story does not
make the very hard to believe claim that they (or any speaker of a
Semitic language!) would mistake a yod for an ayin!
> Also in Talmud, Jesus' name is written as Yesu,
> without the 'ayn.' Now, Anonmoos had made a point
> that this was done to insult Jesus only.
> That is simply false because there are other people
> mentioned in the Talmud who are also called Yesu
> (without the 'ayn').
I'm still investigating this, but I have my doubts. I looked in
Binyamin Kosowsky's, admittedly incomplete, "Otsar Ha-Shemot l'Talmud
Bavli," and it only listed Yeshu (yod-shin-vav, sans ayin) for a verse
that is almost certainly about Jesus. In other parts of Bavli, however,
Y'shua (for other figures), with the ayn, appears. This should have
been obvious, because just about every name that appears in the TaNaKh
appears in the Talmud. But to help the point made by Anonmoos about
insults, let's do a comparison.
See Megilah 16b where Y'shua appears:
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/l/l2901.htm#016b
Then see Arakhin 13b where Y'shua appears:
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/l/l5502.htm#013b
Now compare this with the Gemara Sanhedrin 43a:
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/l/l4406.htm#043a
Before I begin let me note that the link above represents more recent
scholarship in Talmudic studies. The Hebrew reads "Yeshu ha-Notsri"
which makes it clear it is Jesus, while some manuscripts do not have
"ha-Notsri" (though this may be minor, as the reference to Yeshu being
hanged on the eve of Pesach squares nicely with the Christian story).
Anyway, the reason this is significant is they way "Yeshu" is spelled.
Suddenly the ayin is missing (unlike the examples from Megillah and
Arakhin), *AND* there are gershayim inbetween the shin and vav. While
1Man4All probably does not know this, when there are Gerashayim (looks
like apostrophes or a quotation mark) is between the last and
second-to-last letter of a string of characters, that is the indication
that it is an acronym. For example, TaNaKh is spelled tav-nun-kaph, but
gershayim precede the kaph. This spelling is deliberately meant to
insult Jesus, as it invokes a call for Jesus' name and memory to be
blotted out.
With that, quite a lot has piled up, but I am most interested in
1Man4All giving his thoughts on my attempt to summarize his argument in
my post from Feb 2:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/ab09ac16d83c4868
What is 1Man's precise argument? How does he justify Eesho over Yeshua?
1MAN4ALL
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> While I understand that you, like all of us, do not have an unlimited
> amount of time to post to the net, I really wish you had taken into
> account the following post:
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/ab09ac16d83c4868
See my response below.
> You simply responded to it by writing that I should see this post
which
> I am responding to, but almost nothing in this post touches on what
was
> covered in the post linked to above. Hopefully you'll reconsider the
> points brought up in that post some time in the near future (though
> there is no rush).
I find it quite amusing that you keep snipping points that you are
unable to rebut but insist that I answer every single point of yours!
LOL.
> > I suggest that you read the next sentence that I had written which
> you
> > snipped:-)
>
> The next sentence was 'Jesus' name may have been derived
> from the Hebrew name "Yehoshua"'. That may be true, but that does not
> negate it being a Hebrew name. As you have been told several times by
> both me and Anonmoos, the name appears all over the TaNaKh (Anonmoos
> was even kind enough to cite several verses for you). For example,
see
> Ezra 5:2.
Note that I had put Hebrew in quotation marks. The point that I trying
to make was that Aramaic had become the language of Jews, Hebrew itself
had been influenced by Aramaic, and as there is no direct evidence that
Jesus was called Yehoshua or Yeshua, one has to think of Jesus' name as
"Aramaic." For example, if your name is Khinzeer but Americans call
you Khinzy, that in my view should be considered an "American" name.
> > 2. There were several dialects and languages spoken
> > during Jesus' time,
> Fair enough, but if you're going to make an appeal to Mandaic or
> Syriac, you're going to have to demonstrate that these were among the
> dialects spoken in the time (and I'm confident you're not going to do
> such).
The various dialects of Aramaic--at the time of Jesus--were very
similar. In recent times, however, because of political and religious
pressures, Jewish/Christian scholars have begun to spin historical
facts and sometimes create a false impression that Hebrew was always an
intrinsic part of Jewish life, when the fact is that Aramaic had
replacec Hebrew as the language of Jews. Look at the scholarly work
that was done 'before' the creation Israel, and it's remarkably
different.
For example:
William Cureton, member of the Imperial Institute of France, wrote a
book called, "Remains of a very ancient recension of the four gospels
in Syriac," in which he stated: "Generally it may be observed that the
language used by our Saviour and his apostles being that ordinarily
employed by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and called by St.
Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1), Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect,
is so very similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New
Testament, called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered
identical, with the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical
peculiarities. These facts are so well known to all who have given
attention to this subject, that it is not necessary for me to enter
into any proof of them in this place."
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica states: "Aramaic was still a living
language when the punctuation came into existence, and since the lapse
of time was not so very great, the tradition ran less risk of
corruption than in the case of Hebrew. Its general correctness is
further attested by the innumerable points of resemblance between this
language and Syriac, with which we are accurately acquainted. The
Aramaic of the Bible still exhibits various antique features, found in
the Egyptian papyri too, which afterwards disappeared, for example, the
formation of the passive by means of internal vowel-change, and the
causative with ha instead of with aphenomena which have been falsely
explained as Hebraisms. Biblical Aramaic agrees in all essential points
with the language used in the numerous inscriptions of Palmyra
(beginning soon before the Christian era and extending to about the end
of the 3rd century), and on the Nabataean coins and stone monuments -I
The decree which is said to have been sent by Ezra (vii. 12 sqq.) s in
its present form a comparatively late production."
This has now been confirmed by some unbiased scholars. Maurice Casey
wrote a paper called, "Aramaic sources of Mark's gospel," published by
Cambridge University Press 1998, and stated: "Moreover, the problem of
dialect has been much less serious than it seemed previously. Previous
attempts to use 'Galilean' Aramaic suffered badly from the late date
and corrupt nature of the source material, and invariably used a high
proportion of material which was not Galilean at all. Now, however,
most of the words in the dead sea scrolls have turned out to be used in
other dialects too. This means they are not specific to the dialect of
Judea as opposed to anywhere else, and can reasonably be used to
reconstruct the Galilean Aramaic of Jesus."
Syriac inscription dated 49 AD has been found in Jerusalem. There is
also historical proof that Syriac continued to be spoken in Palestine
centuries after Jesus. A woman called Egeria in AD385 wrote: "In this
province [Palestine] there are some people who know both Greek and
Syriac, but others know only one or the other. The bishop may know
Syriac, but never uses it. He always speaks in Greek, and has a
presbyter beside him who translates the Greek into Syriac, so that
everyone can understand what he means. Similarly, the lessons read in
church have to be read in Greek, but there is always someone in
attendance to translate into Syriac so that the people can understand."
'Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic times.' J. Spencer
Trimingham. Publ.: Librairie du Liban 1990
Althoug there is some controversy over it, the book "Martyrs of
Palestine", written by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, was also written
in Syriac and establishes the fact that Syriac was spoken in northern
Palestine in the 3rd or 4th century AD.
The problem of identifying these dialects was well explained by 1911
Brittanica with the following remark. "We may now trace somewhat
farther the development of Western Aramaic in Palestine; but unhappily
few of the sources from which we derive our information can be
thoroughly trusted. In the synagogues it was necessary that the reading
of the Aramaic of Bible should be followed by an oral targum or trans-
Targums, lation into Aramaic, the language of the people. The e Targum
was at a later period fixed in writing, but the officially sanctioned
form of the Targum to the Pentateuch (the so-called Targum of Onkelos)
and of that to the prophets (the so-called Jonathan) was not finally
settled till the 4th or 5th century, and not in Palestine, but in
Babylonia. The ,redactors of the Targum preserved on the whole the
older Palestinian dialect; yet that of Babylon, which differed
considerably from the former, exercised a vitiating influence. The text
of the Targums was punctuated later in Babylonia, in the supra-linear
system there prevalent. Although this task was performed carefully, the
punctuation is hardly as trustworthy as that of the Aramaic pieces of
the Bible, much less the transcriptions in the known Tiberian system
used in the European Targum manuscripts. The language of Onkelos and
Jonathan differs but little from Biblical Aramaic. The language spoken
some time afterwards by the Palestinian Jews, especially in Galilee, is
exhibited in a series of rabbinical works, the so-called J erusaleln
Targums (of which, however, those on the Hagiographa are in some cases
of later date), a few Midrashic works, and the Jerusalem Talmud.
Unfortunately all these books, of which the Midrashini and the Talmud
contain much Hebrew as well as Aramaic, have not been handed down with
care, and require to be used with great caution for linguistic
purposes. MOREOVER, THE INFLUENCE OF THE OLDER LANGUAGE AND ORTHOGRAPHY
HAS IN PART OBSCURED THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE POPULAR DIALECTS; FOR
EXAMPLE, VARIOUS GUTTURALS ARE STILL WRITTEN, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NO
LONGER PRONOUNCED. THE ADAPTATION OF THE SPELLING TO THE REAL
PRONUNCIATION IS CARRIED FARTHEST IN THE JERUSALEM TALMUD, BUT NOT IN A
CONSISTENT MANNER. Besides, all these books are without vowel-points;
but the frequent use of vowel-letters in the later Jewish works renders
this defect less noticeable. Attempts have been made latterly to
utilize the above mentioned books as a means of reconstructing to some
extent the dialect spoken by Jesus and the Apostles, and of
retranslating the utterances of Jesus into their original Galilaean
form. This, however, is a far too venturesome undertaking. How far
these Jewish works actually exhibit the Galilean language can hardly be
definitely determined; and to this must be added the inexactitude of
the traditional text, and, finally, the by no means inconsiderable
difference in time. [Emphasis is mine].
[I suggest that you do read these notes carefully...as I am getting
tired of repeating the same things over and over again].
> The source I cited in another post (the one linked to above),
> Stevenson's work on Jewish Palestinian Grammar, sides with leaning on
> Unqelos, the Yerushalmi, or even OT Aramaic for gleaning information
> about the Aramaic of Jesus' time. Furthermore, as the post linked to
> above shows, if we're going to make an appeal to the cry on the cross
> (as you did), the best conclusion is that the Aramaic spoken by Jesus
> was *VERY* close to Hebrew. These are points you have thus far
ignored,
> with all due respect.
Let me answer it here. As I keep stating-but you and Anonmoos don't
seem to be listening-Greek is irrelevant to this discussion because
it greatly distorted Hebrew/Aramaic expressions and names. IT IS NOT
HELPFUL AT ALL. Let me explain it with respect to the issue that you
have raised.
1. What we find in the New Testament is the (corrupted) Greek
transliteration of this Aramaic expression, not Aramaic itself. Without
Aramaic, which is still spoken, these Greek transliterations would have
presented such a distorted view that it would have been impossible to
guess the original Aramaic/Hebrew expressions or names.
2. Even where this expression is noted i.e. Mark 15:34 and Matthew
27:46, it is not consistent. Mark has "Eloi Eloi lamma sabachthani"
[epsilon-lamda-omega-iota for Eloi and using two 'mu' in lamma]
while Matthew has "heli heli lama sabachthani" [eta-lamda-iota and
using one 'mu' for lama]. The Codez Bezae Cantabrigiensis, which is
one of the oldest codex has "halei helei lama zaphthanei." As the
orginal expresiion in Hebrew is "Eli Eli, lamah azabtani" (Psalms
22:2), it said that Codex Bezae was a 4th century attempt to reconcile
the Greek with Hebrew. None of these are anywhere close to the Aramaic,
"Ali Ali, metul ma sh'beqtani," or in another version "Alahi
Alahi, lamah shebaqtani." [I am assuming that these were taken from
Targums (targumim), which are various Aramaic translations of the Old
Testament]. Because Greek does not have the "sh" or 'qaf'
sounds, "shebaqatani" was written as transliterated as sabachthani.
3. Although there is some controversy on whether Jesus could have even
used this expression, no Biblical scholar has ever said that Jesus was
reciting Psalms 22:2 in Hebrew.
4. One reason you might be confused is that when Jews used to speak
Aramaic, it was sometimes referred to as "Hebrew" by some Jews.
Keep also in mind that Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar languages,
so it is fairly easy to mistakes Hebrew for Aramaic and vice versa,
especially when you consider that many Aramaic words became part of
Hebrew.
> > Why have this bias in favor of Greek and use a
> > secondary language when the original language
> > already exists?
> Because, as you well know, we cannot be 100% certain how certain
names
> were pronounced in the first century. One way to get a notion of how
a
> name or word was pronounced in a Semitic language in a given time
> period, which is admittedly not fool-proof but nonetheless
worthwhile,
> is to see how that word was transliterated into a European language
> during that time period. This is the point of my appeal to the
> Septuagint and NT.
I cannot tell you how ridiculous that proposition is. That's like me
insisting that to guess name pronunciations of ancient Greek
philosophers, we must use Arabic. The reason you wouldn't agree to it
is because Greek is a living language. So is Aramaic.
The problem with your (and Anonmoos') argument is a strong European
bias, that everything has to have a seal of approval from 'beloved'
Greeks and Jews. So to teach Aramaic-speaking people-which is the
language Jesus spoke-- Greek is being employed.
> > 4. Jesus' name in Aramaic is Eisho/Eishaw
>
> You keep asserting this. Some Aramaic speakers today employ
> pronunciations similar to this, and others *DON'T*. You're
arbitrarily
> picking the one that suits you best.
All of them pronounce it as Easho/Easha. What you were looking at was
the web site with WORD TO WORD TRANSLATIONS, NOT TRANSLITERATIONS. In
any case, you are using ONE web site to make a claim, which is
ridiculous. You can ask ANY Aramaic speaking person and he/she would
tell you that Jesus' name is pronounced Easho/Easha in Aramaic. There
are various Aramaic speaking groups. Write to them and find out.
> > 6. Jesus grew up in Galilee and we have historic
> > evidence that Galileans mispronounced the guttural
> > sound 'ayn.' [Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 53a-b;
> > Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot].
>
> I'll have to go to the library and check the reference to tractate
> Eruvin (as the online version with the snunit site is giving me
> trouble). I'll also check the Talmud for instances of
yod-shin-vav-ayn,
> vis a vis simply yod-shin-vav, as I believe you're mistaken when
claim
> that it does not appear there.
>
> > Most likely, the 'ayn' wasn't there to begin with
>
> Again, wrong. The ayn is there in the Peshitta, the ayn is there in
the
> TaNaKh, and if I'm not mistaken, the ayn is there in early Christian
> inscriptions bearing the name.
[I have to scream here, as you don't seem to be listening] THE AYN
WAS NOT PRONOUNCED SOMETIMES OR WAS PRONOUNCED AS HAMZA. See my notes
above and in previous posts.
> > 9. The language that was spoken in Galilee was Aramaic (same as
> > Syriac), and that's the language that is spoken by many Jews in
> > Israel today.
> I'm sorry, what? Syriac is a form of Aramaic, but you're mistaken if
> you think Syriac is the "same as" the Aramaic of first century
> Palestine.
See my notes above.
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/b0d65e1968a9c44f
>
> > > Aramaic speaking Christians, including those who
> > > put forth http://peshitta.org , also pronounced his
> > > name as Yeshua. Also, maybe we should focus on Jewish
> > > Aramaic, not later forms of Christian Aramaic.
> >
> > I saw the page that you had referenced and what they
> > were doing was to provide a word-to-word translation,
> > not transliteration.
>
> The names are transliterated in the Aramaic way preferred by the
> translator. Had you actually looked at the page, as you claimed, you
> would have seen that all the names are transliterated. Or do you
> believe that English speaking Christians call Jacob, Isaac, Abraham,
> and Joseph "Yaqub, Aeshaq, Awraham & Yosip," respectively?
They did it so that Christians would recognize Jesus' name, who after
all is the most important character for Christians. As I stated above,
feel free to write to any Aramaic speaking person and find out what
he/she calls Jesus.
> So again, you're making an appeal to the way Aramaic speakers
pronounce
> yod-shin-vav-ayn, but will only side with those Aramaic speakers that
> pronounce it "Eesho". why not note the many Aramaic speakers (both
> Jewish and Christian) that offer the pronunciation Y'shua/Yeshua? It
> seems the decision to pick sides on your part is arbitrary if not
> motivated by an agenda...
No. Those Aramaic speakers who call Jesus "Yashua" do so because of
modern Western/Jewish influence. Find out what the TRADITIONAL Aramaic
pronunciation of Jesus' name is.
> In closing, please see my other post (linked to above), which
attempts
> to summarize your argument. If my understanding of your argument is
> correct, then it is fallacious. If I am mistaken, you should
elaborare
> on what your argument is.
I can summarize my own arguments. You should summarize only your own.
AnonMoos
> Aramaic had become the language of Jews, Hebrew itself had been
> influenced by Aramaic, and as there is no direct evidence that Jesus
> was called Yehoshua or Yeshua,
Whatever -- there's plenty of evidence that the earlier Hebrew name
Y-H-W-Sh-(W)-` had changed to Y-Sh-W-` in ordinary (non-historical)
use WITHIN HEBREW by the Persian period. That's why Y-H-W-Sh-(W)-`
does not occur in Ezra-Nehemiah, and why Y-Sh-W-` does not occur in
the Heptateuch -- and also why the name of Joshua son of Nun appears
in Josephus' Greek-language works as Iesous (i.e. with exactly the
same spelling as the name of Jesus of Nazareth).
> one has to think of Jesus' name as "Aramaic."
Why? In the Bible, Yeshu` (Y-Sh-W-`) occurs in 30 Hebrew verses (Ezra
2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah
3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7,
12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles
31:15), but in only one Aramaic verse (Ezra 5:2). In Jesus' own
lifetime, Hebrew was basically pronounced using the same sounds as
existed in Aramaic at that time, so whether Jesus' name was considered
Hebrew or Armaic wouldn't have made any real difference to its
pronunciation; but the fact remained that Y-Sh-W-` was a name of
Hebrew origin -- as literate Jews would have been reminded every time
they read in any Ezra-Nehemiah scroll.
> The various dialects of Aramaic--at the time of Jesus--were very
> similar.
Sort of, but not really. During the Persian period, there was
basically only one form of written Aramaic, which was the standard
language of administration of the Persian empire. However, by Jesus'
lifetime this centralizing or standardizing force had disappeared, and
the various local Aramaic dialects/languages had developed more or
less separately and independently for over three hundred years. The
various Aramaic languages were certainly "similar" in a way, yet they
differed from each other far more than, say, British English
vs. American English.
> Jewish/Christian scholars have begun to spin historical facts and
> sometimes create a false impression that Hebrew was always an
> intrinsic part of Jewish life, when the fact is that Aramaic had
> replacec Hebrew as the language of Jews.
It had replaced Hebrew as the native or mother tongue of Jews in the
vast majority of cases -- but as I've said repeatedly before, the
educated religious Jews living in Judea or Galilee during the 1st.
century A.D. would have probably used the Hebrew language in one way
or another almost every day of their lives; and when they read from
scrolls of Ezra-Nehemiah or Chronicles (just as Jesus read from the
Isaiah scroll in the synagogue in Luke 4:16), then they would have
read out the Old Testament name Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin in the same way as
the contemporary name Yeshu` was pronounced in the Aramaic of the
period.
> Look at the scholarly work that was done 'before' the creation
> Israel, and it's remarkably different.
Your pointless conspiracy fantasies really have very little to do with
anything.
> For example: William Cureton stated: "Generally it may be observed
> that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles is so very
> similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament,
> called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with
> the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical
> peculiarities.
You're going to rely on someone who died in 1864 for testimony that
1st century A.D. Galilean and/or Judean Aramaic is identical with
Syriac -- an EASTERN Aramaic language which originated at Edessa/Urfa
a city which falls within the borders of modern Turkey today (over 300
miles from Jerusalem!) -- as spoken several centuries AFTER the
1st. century A.D.??? That's certainly not the soundest scholarly
method. It's just possible that we know a little bit more now about
some things than we did in 1864...
> The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica states: "Aramaic was still a living
> language when the punctuation came into existence, and since the
> lapse of time was not so very great, the tradition ran less risk of
> corruption than in the case of Hebrew.
Whatever -- it's still the case that about 500 (FIVE HUNDRED) years
intervened between Jesus' lifetime and the invention of the systems of
vowel diacritic dots for the Syriac language, and the Syriac language
of 500 A.D. was not the language that Jesus spoke.
> There is also historical proof that Syriac continued to be spoken in
> Palestine centuries after Jesus.
Too bad that that it wasn't spoken in Palestine DURING Jesus' lifetime!
> Attempts have been made latterly to utilize the above mentioned
> books as a means of reconstructing to some extent the dialect spoken
> by Jesus and the Apostles, and of retranslating the utterances of
> Jesus into their original Galilaean form. This, however, is a far
> too venturesome undertaking. ... the by no means inconsiderable
> difference in time.
In other words the most familiar form of "Classical" Syriac of later
centuries is of limited value for determining 1st Century A.D.
Galilean or Judean WESTERN Aramaic.
> Greek is irrelevant to this discussion
The hell it ain't! It's one line of evidence which should be
considered -- together with all of the other available evidence -- in
applying the process of scientific linguistic historical
reconstruction in order to arrive at a well-founded reconstruction of
how the name of Jesus would have been pronounced in the 1st. century
A.D.
> 1. What we find in the New Testament is the (corrupted) Greek
> transliteration of this Aramaic expression, not Aramaic itself.
Whatever -- the consonants of Greek Iesous are rather different from
the consonants of Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu`, because of the great
differences which in fact existed between the Greek consonant system
or inventory and the consonant systems or inventories of the other two
languages at that period of history (see below). However, Greek
provides information about the VOWELS of the name Y-Sh-W-` which can't
be found in Semitic writing until the creation of the various systems
of vowel diacritics beginning around 500 A.D. So Greek provides
information about the CONTEMPORARY (2nd century B.C. to 1st century
A.D.) pronunciation of the vowels of the name which simply isn't
available from Aramaic writings.
Thus as I've explained in excruciating mind-numbing detail in the
past, a transcription from language A into language B can never be
called "corrupt" as long as it's the CLOSEST POSSIBLE RENDERING of the
word from language A into the structures of language B. So the
Hawaiian version of the word "Christmas" is Kalikimaka, yet Kalikimaka
is not "corrupt", because there is no rendering of the English word
"Christmas" into Hawaiian sounds which is closer to the original
English pronounciation than Kalikimaka is.
Similarly Iesous is in fact the closest that Ancient Greek could get
to Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu`. Greek did not have any `Ayin consonant or
"sh" sound, and insofar as a "y" sound existed, it was phonologically
just a variant of the "i" vowel. So there were simply no Greek
letters for `Ayin, "sh", or "y". And in late Hellenistic Greek,
omicron-ypsilon was pronounced as a simple long "u" vowel (the "u" in
Yeshu` is also long). And finally, if a noun or name was to be
"declined" in Greek (i.e. have separate forms for the nominative,
genitive, dative, accusative etc. cases), then it needed to have
appropriate Greek grammatical endings added on at the end. When you
add all these factors in together, then it emerges that Iesous is the
closest that ancient Greek could get to Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu` (in
later Hebrew Yeshua`).
So since Iesous (iota-eta-sigma-omicron-ypsilon-sigma) was the CLOSEST
POSSIBLE ancient Greek transcription of Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu` , it's not
in fact "corrupt" at all -- but since `Isa (`ayn,ya,sin,alif-maqsura)
ISN'T THE CLOSEST POSSIBLE early Arabic transcription of Hebrew/Aramaic
Yeshu` , therefore it is truly corrupt. So Greek Iesous is in fact much
LESS CORRUPT than Arabic `Isa.
> That's like me insisting that to guess name pronunciations of ancient
> Greek philosophers, we must use Arabic.
Aflatun, eh? ;-)
> The reason you wouldn't agree to it is because Greek is a living
> language. So is Aramaic.
Nope, the reason we wouldn't agree is that normally Greek travels through
a path of Latin (sometimes Latin and French) to get to English. A path
from Greek to Arabic to English would be culturally quite unusual. This
has absolutely nothing to do with wheter Greek is a living language.
> THE AYN WAS NOT PRONOUNCED SOMETIMES OR WAS PRONOUNCED AS HAMZA.
In some dialects, none of which has any any particular direct relevance
to the subject at hand (just as modern Maltese Arabic, in which `Ayn also
disappears, has no particular relevance to 7th century A.D. Qur'anic
Arabic pronunciation).
Your big problem is that you assemble information about some dialect over
here where `Ayn was not pronounced, and some other dialect over there (in
a completely different time period and geographical area!) in which the
"sh" and "s" sounds may have been confused in some cases, and you think
you can simply glom together all this divergent and incommensurable
material in order to conveniently hand-wavingly explain away any
phonological discrepancy or anomaly whatsoever. Sorry, but serious
scholarly linguistics simply doesn't work that way!
And with all this, you STILL haven't explained why an `Ayn (`E) consonant
occurs at the end of the name of Jesus in the Syriac Peshitta, nor have
you explained where the `Ayn consonant at the beginning of the Qur'anic
Arabic name `Isa comes from. Please do attempt to come up with SOME
answer to the points my post URL:<news:4201339C...@io.com>
or http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=4201339C.400FBB0E%40io.com before
you start spreading your condescension too thick...
> Those Aramaic speakers who call Jesus "Yashua" do so because of modern
> Western/Jewish influence.
I doubt it -- and it's Yeshu` (not "Yashua"), or have you forgotten the
link you provided to " http://www.beith-morounoye.org/special/yeshu.wma ...
Yeshu' in Aramaic " already?
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
GabrilJb wrote:
. . .
> Yeshua... Eeso... Iesous... Jesus
All you need do is watch South Park. There's a Jesus character, who has
an agent-producer. She addresses him as J, as in "You need to sign this
now, J!"
1MAN4ALL
> > Aramaic had become the language of Jews, Hebrew itself had been
> > influenced by Aramaic, and as there is no direct evidence that
Jesus
> > was called Yehoshua or Yeshua,
>
> Whatever --
In the past few months, I have come to realize that when you are
loosing a debate, you start your 'whatevers.' If you don't have a valid
argument to make, you should acknowledge it candidly.
> there's plenty of evidence that the earlier Hebrew name
> Y-H-W-Sh-(W)-` had changed to Y-Sh-W-` in ordinary (non-historical)
> use WITHIN HEBREW by the Persian period. That's why Y-H-W-Sh-(W)-`
> does not occur in Ezra-Nehemiah, and why Y-Sh-W-` does not occur in
> the Heptateuch --
As you already know, parts of Ezra were written in Aramaic, which
proves that by that time Aramaic had begun to replace Hebrew as the
language of Jews. I have never denied that the name "Yahushua" may have
become "Yeshua" by Ezra's time. But ALMOST FOUR HUNDRED YEARS LATER,
when Jesus was born, "Yeshua" itself may have become "Easho/Easo"
because of Aramaic influence.
Whether it's Talmud, language spoken by Mandeans (followers of John the
Baptist); Samaritans; Gallileans; or even modern Aramaic speakers, the
AYN that you keep obsessing about was/is either not written or not
pronounced. This is consistently true of the area and times that Jesus
lived in.
> and also why the name of Joshua son of Nun appears
> in Josephus' Greek-language works as Iesous (i.e. with exactly the
> same spelling as the name of Jesus of Nazareth).
Forget the Geek! In Geek language, Yahushua, Yashua, Easho, Easo, and
Aiso, are written the same, so it makes no difference, and it proves
nothing.
> > one has to think of Jesus' name as "Aramaic."
>
> Why? In the Bible, Yeshu` (Y-Sh-W-`) occurs in 30 Hebrew verses
(Ezra
> 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah
> 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7,
> 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles
> 31:15), but in only one Aramaic verse (Ezra 5:2). In Jesus' own
> lifetime, Hebrew was basically pronounced using the same sounds as
> existed in Aramaic at that time, so whether Jesus' name was
considered
> Hebrew or Armaic wouldn't have made any real difference to its
> pronunciation; but the fact remained that Y-Sh-W-` was a name of
> Hebrew origin -- as literate Jews would have been reminded every time
> they read in any Ezra-Nehemiah scroll.
That's a totally false argument because there is no evidence that Jesus
was called Yeshu/Yeshua. A person named Easho could have read the name
Yeshu/Yeshua and not worry that his name didn't match. Furthermore,
there is only circumstantial evidence that Jesus knew Hebrew; after
all, he was a carpenter, not a priest.
> > The various dialects of Aramaic--at the time of Jesus--were very
> > similar.
>
> Sort of, but not really. During the Persian period, there was
> basically only one form of written Aramaic, which was the standard
> language of administration of the Persian empire. However, by Jesus'
> lifetime this centralizing or standardizing force had disappeared,
and
> the various local Aramaic dialects/languages had developed more or
> less separately and independently for over three hundred years. The
> various Aramaic languages were certainly "similar" in a way, yet they
> differed from each other far more than, say, British English
> vs. American English.
I have provided numerous references already that suggest that yes there
were different dialects but the differences were in minor idiomatic
expressions and orthography, not in vocabulary. Aramaic speaking
Jews/Christians have lived in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria for ages.
You are trying to put a spin on all this and leave a false impression
that these Christians/Jews somehow disappeared and were replaced by
"Syriac-speaking" people from Edessa.
> > Jewish/Christian scholars have begun to spin historical facts and
> > sometimes create a false impression that Hebrew was always an
> > intrinsic part of Jewish life, when the fact is that Aramaic had
> > replacec Hebrew as the language of Jews.
>
> It had replaced Hebrew as the native or mother tongue of Jews in the
> vast majority of cases -- but as I've said repeatedly before, the
> educated religious Jews living in Judea or Galilee during the 1st.
> century A.D. would have probably used the Hebrew language in one way
> or another almost every day of their lives; and when they read from
> scrolls of Ezra-Nehemiah or Chronicles (just as Jesus read from the
> Isaiah scroll in the synagogue in Luke 4:16), then they would have
> read out the Old Testament name Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin in the same way as
> the contemporary name Yeshu` was pronounced in the Aramaic of the
> period.
At that time only a very select group of Rabbis read from the Hebrew OT
and their reading were immediately translated into Aramaic. Targumin
(Aramaic translations of the Old Testament) were also common, for the
obvious reason that most Jews didn't know Hebrew.
That's also like saying that once some guy called David learns Hebrew
he should change his name to Hebrew "Doud" or "Daveed."
> > Look at the scholarly work that was done 'before' the creation
> > Israel, and it's remarkably different.
>
> Your pointless conspiracy fantasies really have very little to do
with
> anything.
Now, it's my turn to say, 'whatever' :-)
> > For example: William Cureton stated: "Generally it may be observed
> > that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles is so very
> > similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament,
> > called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with
> > the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical
> > peculiarities.
>
> You're going to rely on someone who died in 1864 for testimony that
> 1st century A.D. Galilean and/or Judean Aramaic is identical with
> Syriac -- an EASTERN Aramaic language which originated at Edessa/Urfa
> a city which falls within the borders of modern Turkey today (over
300
> miles from Jerusalem!) -- as spoken several centuries AFTER the
> 1st. century A.D.??? That's certainly not the soundest scholarly
> method. It's just possible that we know a little bit more now about
> some things than we did in 1864...
Eastern Aramaic didn't "originate" in Edessa. Edessa was simply a seat
of great Christian learning. The only difference between Eastern and
Western Aramaic was that "Western Aramaic" was influenced by Greek and
Eastern Aramaic retained its purity for the most part. "Syriac" was the
name that Greeks gave to Aramaic. Nevertheless, the difference in
dialect was very minor and had a lot to do with idiomatic expressions
and orthography than actual vocabulary. Keep in mind that there are
still native, Aramaic- speaking people in Lebanon, Syria and even
Israel.
> > The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica states: "Aramaic was still a
living
> > language when the punctuation came into existence, and since the
> > lapse of time was not so very great, the tradition ran less risk of
> > corruption than in the case of Hebrew.
>
> Whatever -- it's still the case that about 500 (FIVE HUNDRED) years
> intervened between Jesus' lifetime and the invention of the systems
of
> vowel diacritic dots for the Syriac language, and the Syriac language
> of 500 A.D. was not the language that Jesus spoke.
I have provided a number of references and if you still don't want to
believe, then don't. Aramaic has been a spoken language for thousands
of years. Although all languages go through transformations, it is
highly unlikely that Aramaic speaking Christians-- many of whom are
descendants of the earliest followers of Jesus-- would change the name
of their own Lord?
> > There is also historical proof that Syriac continued to be spoken
in
> > Palestine centuries after Jesus.
>
> Too bad that that it wasn't spoken in Palestine DURING Jesus'
lifetime!
How do you know? What happened to all the Christians in Palestine after
Jesus was allegedly crucified? They all migrated to Greece? Where is
the historical evidence that they all switched to "Syriac"?
> > Attempts have been made latterly to utilize the above mentioned
> > books as a means of reconstructing to some extent the dialect
spoken
> > by Jesus and the Apostles, and of retranslating the utterances of
> > Jesus into their original Galilaean form. This, however, is a far
> > too venturesome undertaking. ... the by no means inconsiderable
> > difference in time.
>
> In other words the most familiar form of "Classical" Syriac of later
> centuries is of limited value for determining 1st Century A.D.
> Galilean or Judean WESTERN Aramaic.
Somehow you have this mistaken notion in your mind that Jews spoke
Western Aramaic and Eastern Aramaic was spoken by "others." The truth
is that Jews as well as Christians spoke both Eastern and Western
Aramaic, and there wasn't that much difference between these dialects.
See my previous posts with various references.
> > Greek is irrelevant to this discussion
>
> The hell it ain't! It's one line of evidence which should be
> considered -- together with all of the other available evidence -- in
> applying the process of scientific linguistic historical
> reconstruction in order to arrive at a well-founded reconstruction of
> how the name of Jesus would have been pronounced in the 1st. century
> A.D.
I have already indicated that even within NT, there is no consistency,
so how can it ever be used to determine pronunciations in a foreign
language?
> > 1. What we find in the New Testament is the (corrupted) Greek
> > transliteration of this Aramaic expression, not Aramaic itself.
>
> Whatever -- the consonants of Greek Iesous are rather different from
> the consonants of Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu`, because of the great
> differences which in fact existed between the Greek consonant system
> or inventory and the consonant systems or inventories of the other
two
> languages at that period of history (see below).
There was only one language: Aramaic. Hebrew was to Jews as Latin is
to Catholics today.
> However, Greek
> provides information about the VOWELS of the name Y-Sh-W-` which
can't
> be found in Semitic writing until the creation of the various systems
> of vowel diacritics beginning around 500 A.D. So Greek provides
> information about the CONTEMPORARY (2nd century B.C. to 1st century
> A.D.) pronunciation of the vowels of the name which simply isn't
> available from Aramaic writings.
As I have stated too many times already, ARAMAIC IS A LIVING
LANGUAGE...WESTERN ARAMIAC, EASTERN ARAMAIC...NO MATTER HOW YOU SPIN
IT, IS STILL SPOKEN TODAY BY JEWS IN ISRAEL. It is just laughable that
you are judging the pronunciation of a language by using some other
language which is not even remotely related!
> So since Iesous (iota-eta-sigma-omicron-ypsilon-sigma) was the
CLOSEST
> POSSIBLE ancient Greek transcription of Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu` , it's
not
> in fact "corrupt" at all -- but since `Isa (`ayn,ya,sin,alif-maqsura)
> ISN'T THE CLOSEST POSSIBLE early Arabic transcription of
Hebrew/Aramaic
> Yeshu` , therefore it is truly corrupt. So Greek Iesous is in fact
much
> LESS CORRUPT than Arabic `Isa.
It is possible that even Greeks living in Palestine called Jesus "Ieso"
(but wrote it as Iesous (to denote the masculine singular gender in
Greek). Aramaic speaking people have always called Jesus
Easho/Easo/Eishaw which are all very close to Easa and nowhere close to
Yahushua/Yeshu.
> > That's like me insisting that to guess name pronunciations of
ancient
> > Greek philosophers, we must use Arabic.
>
> Aflatun, eh? ;-)
See my point? :-)
> > THE AYN WAS NOT PRONOUNCED SOMETIMES OR WAS PRONOUNCED AS HAMZA.
>
> In some dialects, none of which has any any particular direct
relevance
> to the subject at hand (just as modern Maltese Arabic, in which `Ayn
also
> disappears, has no particular relevance to 7th century A.D. Qur'anic
> Arabic pronunciation).
>
> Your big problem is that you assemble information about some dialect
over
> here where `Ayn was not pronounced, and some other dialect over there
(in
> a completely different time period and geographical area!) in which
the
> "sh" and "s" sounds may have been confused in some cases, and you
think
> you can simply glom together all this divergent and incommensurable
> material in order to conveniently hand-wavingly explain away any
> phonological discrepancy or anomaly whatsoever. Sorry, but serious
> scholarly linguistics simply doesn't work that way!
You are the one who is going all the way to Greece to figure out
Aramaic pronunciations when the language that Jesus spoke is still
spoken! What can be closer to a language than itself???
I have located all these variations in dialects within the same region
in which Jesus was born and among people who are descendants of some of
the earliest Christians!
> And with all this, you STILL haven't explained why an `Ayn (`E)
consonant
> occurs at the end of the name of Jesus in the Syriac Peshitta, nor
have
> you explained where the `Ayn consonant at the beginning of the
Qur'anic
> Arabic name `Isa comes from.
I have explained both! How many references do I have to provide...or
how many times do you have to hear Aramaic speaking people pronounce
Jesus' name...that would convince you that this AYN was either not
pronounced or was pronounced as Hamza? Regarding your second question,
you first have answer, how a Christian monastery in Syria in
pre-Islamic times was called 3isaniya? Also, if you are writing Aramaic
name Eiso/Eisaw in Arabic, how will you write it if not with an AYN?
> > Those Aramaic speakers who call Jesus "Yashua" do so because of
modern
> > Western/Jewish influence.
>
> I doubt it -- and it's Yeshu` (not "Yashua"), or have you forgotten
the
> link you provided to "
http://www.beith-morounoye.org/special/yeshu.wma ...
> Yeshu' in Aramaic " already?
Well, I am writing it the way most Christians write it:-)
zev
I know this is not a central point in this debate,
but you've referred a few times to Jewish (or Israeli) speakers of Aramaic.
There may be oldsters who spoke Aramaic
in their native land (wherever that may be)
but I've never in my life seen or heard of
someone naturally speaking Aramaic in Israel.
Why do you say this?
Zev
Yusuf B Gursey
you mean "Greek"
but it was jews (whether Hebrew or Aramaic speaking) who wrote these
names using the greek alphabet.
> Aiso, are written the same, so it makes no difference, and it proves
> nothing.
>
> > So since Iesous (iota-eta-sigma-omicron-ypsilon-sigma) was the
> CLOSEST
> > POSSIBLE ancient Greek transcription of Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshu` ,
it's
> not
> > in fact "corrupt" at all -- but since `Isa
(`ayn,ya,sin,alif-maqsura)
> > ISN'T THE CLOSEST POSSIBLE early Arabic transcription of
> Hebrew/Aramaic
> > Yeshu` , therefore it is truly corrupt. So Greek Iesous is in fact
> much
> > LESS CORRUPT than Arabic `Isa.
>
> It is possible that even Greeks living in Palestine called Jesus
"Ieso"
> (but wrote it as Iesous (to denote the masculine singular gender in
> Greek). Aramaic speaking people have always called Jesus
> Easho/Easo/Eishaw which are all very close to Easa and nowhere close
to
> Yahushua/Yeshu.
none are close to 3i:sa" becuaseof the position of the `Ayn.
then, in your logic, the Qur'an ought to have a hamza, not an `Ayn in
the beginning of the word.
> you first have answer, how a Christian monastery in Syria in
> pre-Islamic times was called 3isaniya? Also, if you are writing
Aramaic
because by that time (6th cent.) there were Arabs in the region, and
3i:sa" is an arabic version of the name.
Yusuf B Gursey
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
>
> 4. The interchangeability of SHIN and SIN sounds in Hebrew goes back
to
the change of *sh* > s (arabic shin was ortiginally a more complex
sound,
believed to have been simialr to the original hebrew sin) is in arabic,
as middle persian words with *sh* borrowed into arabic 1st half of 1st
millenium, and perhaps a little after) appear in arabic as /s/ .
> thousands of years. [Hebrew had only one letter for both sounds].
This
> is confirmed by the Bible; see Judges 12:5-6. It is not clear however
> if Ephraimites were the only ones who could not pronounce "SHIN." But
> it would be a fair assumption that people of Judah who lived in the
> south were able to do so. That would mean that people of northern
> Israel pronounced "SHIN" as "SAMECH" whereas people in the south and
there is nothing that says anything general about shin vs. samekh in
general
the hebrew at theat time was undergoing a transition, from a language
with a richer consonantal inventory like arabic to what it became in
the 1st millenium. but the writing was based on the dialects with less
variety. what is written as shibbolet (shibboleth is a later
pronounciation)
may have actually been *[thibbolet] and sibbolet *[shibbolet] . the
orthography may not have been sufficient
> east pronounced it the way it should be. Even today's Jews are not
sure
> if "SHIN" and "SIN" were once pronounced the same. This is also
well, semticists know they were once pronounced different, and sin
different from samekh as well.
> confirmed by 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which is now available on
> the Internet: "One sound, SIN, appears only in Hebrew, in Phoenician,
> and in the older Aramaic. It must originally have been pronounced
very
> like SH, since it is represented in writing by the same character; in
> later times it was changed into an ordinary S. Assyrian does not
> distinguish it from SH."
> http://22.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SE/SEMITIC_LANGUAGES.htm
•R.L.Measures
** There's a small sect in Israel that reportedly still speaks
Aramaic, but only as a secondary language. Also, there's apparently a
small town in N. Lebanon where Aramaic is still spoken.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
zev
"•R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r_-090205...@192.168.1.100...
Probably Samaritans, who live in Shchem and Holon.
Is that it?
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
> ...
Greetings!
Apologies for the delay in response. I wanted to visit a library before
writing this post...
> I find it quite amusing that you keep snipping points
> that you are unable to rebut but insist that I answer
> every single point of yours!
Well, my disagreement with you on this is two-fold. First, I don't feel
that I have avoided any significant points, though I am more than
willing to reconsider something skipped over that you may consider
important. The only time I passed over something that I thought should
be responded to, I made sure to make note of that fact, and this was
the issue of the way some Galileans mangle gutterals according to
tractate Eruvin (i.e. I noted that I would respond at a later time, and
I did). Second, I do not ask that you respond to every single point,
rather I was assigning importance to a specific post.
> The point that I trying to make was that Aramaic
> had become the language of Jews, Hebrew itself
> had been influenced by Aramaic, and as there is
> no direct evidence that Jesus was called Yehoshua
> or Yeshua, one has to think of Jesus' name as
> "Aramaic."
Ah, but there *is* evidence that his name was Yeshua, which I will
attempt to again lay out in this post. Yusuf, Anonmoos and I have
attempted to show you precisely this in the past as well. I hope that
you, who complains of others ignoring key points, will give it a closer
look.
> The various dialects of Aramaic--at the time of
> Jesus--were very similar. In recent times,
> however, because of political and religious
> pressures, Jewish/Christian scholars have begun
> to spin historical facts and sometimes create a
> false impression that Hebrew was always an
> intrinsic part of Jewish life, when the fact is
> that Aramaic had replacec Hebrew as the language
> of Jews. Look at the scholarly work that was
> done 'before' the creation Israel, and it's
> remarkably different.
This is really unfortunate. First, you poison the well by attempting to
cast the arguments of Anonmoos and myself under the light of some sort
of Zionist conspiracy, when it is nothing of the sort. Second, this
comes off as a straw man, as I never denied that Aramaic was the first
language spoken by the overwhelming majority of Jews in first century
Palestine, nor do I recall akhoona Anonmoos denying it. In fact, I
cited the book by Stevenson to argue in favor of the precise sort of
Aramaic employed at the time.
> William Cureton, member of the Imperial Institute
> of France, wrote a book called, "Remains of a
> very ancient recension of the four gospels in
> Syriac," in which he stated: "Generally it may
> be observed that the language used by our Saviour
> and his apostles being that ordinarily employed
> by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and
> called by St. Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1),
> Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect, is so
> very similar and closely allied with the Syriac
> of the New Testament, called the Peshitto, that
> the two may be considered identical, with the
> exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical
> peculiarities. These facts are so well known to
> all who have given attention to this subject,
> that it is not necessary for me to enter into
> any proof of them in this place."
As Anonmoos already noted, this is from the middle of the 19th century.
Scholarship has advanced somewhat over the last 150 years. There is no
doubt that there are similarities between the Aramaisms that can be
gleaned from the NT and the text of the Peshitta, but more recent
sources (including one that you called to witness) do not agree that
they are identical.
Below I will get into the issue of Syriac being different from 1st
century Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (and how even a scholar you called
to witness is not in favor of Syriac being a primary source for
understanding the Aramaic of Jesus), but here I want to quickly note
that diversity exists even within Syriac. Joosten notes this as
follows:
"First, it is of course a simplification to speak of *the* language of
*the* Peshitta. Linguistic differences exist between the books of the
Bible; some of these are due to differences in the technique of
individual translators, but others seem to indicate different stages of
the language."
[Jan Joosten, "Materials for a Linguistic Approach to the Old Testament
Peshitta," Journal for the Aramaic Bible, Vol. 1, no. 2, Dec 1999, p.
204, emphasis is the author's, though the original text italicized the
definite articles which I placed in between asterisks]
Here Joosten is referring to the Peshitta to the Old Testament. He goes
on to note that the situation is more chaotic with the Peshitta to the
New Testament:
"While all this is true, the linguistic diversity within the OTP should
not be exaggerated. The language of the OTP may be considered to be a
relative unity, particularly when it is viewed in comparison with other
types of Syriac such as the language of the Old Syriac Gospels[.]"
[Joosten, opere citato, p. 205]
Indeed there will be similarities among all the forms of Aramaic, but
there are key differences. All you need to do is consult a grammar of
Palestinian Jewish Aramaic on the one hand, and a grammar of Syriac on
the other, to begin being confonted with the relevant differences. More
below...
> The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica states: "Aramaic
> was still a living language when the punctuation
> came into existence, and since the lapse of time
> was not so very great, the tradition ran less risk
> of corruption than in the case of Hebrew. Its
> general correctness is further attested by the
> innumerable points of resemblance between this
> language and Syriac, with which we are accurately
> acquainted. The Aramaic of the Bible still
> exhibits various antique features, found in
> the Egyptian papyri too, which afterwards
> disappeared, for example, the formation of the
> passive by means of internal vowel-change, and the
> causative with ha instead of with aphenomena which
> have been falsely explained as Hebraisms. Biblical
> Aramaic agrees in all essential points with the
> language used in the numerous inscriptions of
> Palmyra (beginning soon before the Christian era
> and extending to about the end of the 3rd century),
> and on the Nabataean coins and stone monuments -I
> The decree which is said to have been sent by Ezra
> (vii. 12 sqq.) s in its present form a comparatively
> late production."
I don't see the relevance of this passage, save for the part that notes
the points of resemblance between Syriac and the Aramaic of the Bible.
I'm not disputing that there are many points of agreement. Maybe you
could elaborate on how this supports your case?
> This has now been confirmed by some unbiased
> scholars.
What has been confirmed by unbiased scholars? That many Aramaisms
appear in the NT? I do not deny it, nor did I ever. That the Jews of
first century Palestine spoke Aramaic? I do not deny it, nor did I
ever. That all the forms of Aramaic (or at least first century
Palestinian Aramaic and the Syriac of the Peshitto) are identical? This
I do deny, and so do the scholars (including one scholar you called to
witness). Let's consider Casey...
> Maurice Casey wrote a paper called, "Aramaic
> sources of Mark's gospel," published by
> Cambridge University Press 1998, and stated:
> "Moreover, the problem of dialect has been
> much less serious than it seemed previously.
> Previous attempts to use 'Galilean' Aramaic
> suffered badly from the late date and corrupt
> nature of the source material, and invariably
> used a high proportion of material which was
> not Galilean at all. Now, however, most of
> the words in the dead sea scrolls have turned
> out to be used in other dialects too. This
> means they are not specific to the dialect of
> Judea as opposed to anywhere else, and can
> reasonably be used to reconstruct the Galilean
> Aramaic of Jesus."
With all due respect, I believe that because you lifted this off the
net rather than actually consult the book, you have misunderstood
Casey. The above passage is from page 254. Let's take a closer look at
what Casey wrote. He argues at great length that the Semiticisms of the
NT lean far more heavily in favor of Aramaic being Jesus' first
language than they do for Hebrew. After many pages of forcefully
pushing this point, Casey gets to the issue of what sort of Aramaic on
page 89:
"Our next problem is what kind of Aramaic we should use. We must
suppose that Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic. Virtually no Galilean
Aramaic of the right period survives, however. Later sources are
centuries later, and much of what goes under the heading of Galilean
Aramaic does not really come from Galilee. [...] This problem is
insuperable in theory, but fortunately it is no longer of great
importance in practice. This is largely due to the discovery of the
Dead Sea scrolls, which provide us with a large slice of Aramaic
vocabulary, and standard syntax, from shortly before the time of
Jesus."
[Maurice Casey, "Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel," (Cambridge, 1998),
p. 89]
So, it is not the case that all forms of Aramaic are identical, and
thus any will do. It is the case that we can lean on the Dead Sea
scrolls because they are close to the time and location, and thus can
serve as a benchmark for what portions (appearing in other forms of
Aramaic) are relevant. You may not yet see that this is the point Casey
is trying to make, so let me drive the point home...
"Equally, using any dialect without any controls is disastrous. We
cannot possibly suppose that the verb [ATBRN$] was available for Jesus
to use - it is a specifically Syriac development, brought about by the
need to discuss his incarnation in theological terms. Moreover, we have
seen that scholars who play tricks with words can play them more
abundantly if they avail themselves to the Aramaic of all periods. We
therefore must not do this."
[Casey, opere citato, p. 91]
So Casey is arguing that the Dead Sea scrolls are valuable in that they
can serve as the primary source for attempting to understand Aramaisms
in the NT. He is tentative, however, about just using some other form
of Aramaic, hence demonstrating that he does not consider the various
forms as identical. Looking to these other sources should be done with
caution in Casey's view. Consider the following from the same page as
the above:
"It follows that the Dead Sea scrolls are our major resource. They are
from the right language, the right culture, and very near to the right
date. Moreover, there are now sufficient [sic?] of them extant and
published to supply a high proportion of the vocabulary and syntax of
the Aramaic sources of the synoptic Gospels. However, they do not
supply everything. What do we do when the necessary vocabulary is
missing? At this point, we must use material from other dialects with
caution."
[Casey, ibidem]
So the Dead Sea scrolls serve as the primary source. Also on page 91,
Casey lists a secondary source: "We may turn next to the Palestinian
Talmud." He argues such on the grounds that it "is the right language
and culture, only somewhat later in date." Then on page 92, Casey notes
a tertiary source in the Syriac lectionaries, but cautions that these
are from a "different culture, and a somewhat later date." He concludes
that "We must be careful, therefore." So it is clear that Casey does
not think we can just make an appeal to Syriac. While he gives primacy
to the Dead Sea scrolls, he gives greater weight to the Yerushalmi than
he does Syriac texts, which falls roughly in line with the scholarship
of Stevenson (and even Gustaf Dalman, who wrote only a few decades
after Cureton), which I alluded to earlier in this thread.
> Syriac inscription dated 49 AD has been found
> in Jerusalem.
This is very interesting. Could you provide more information on this?
> There is also historical proof that Syriac
> continued to be spoken in Palestine
> centuries after Jesus.
I won't dispute that Syriac was spoken in Palestine in the fourth
century, so I hope you will forgive me snipping the unreferenced quote
attributed to Egeria or the reference to Eusebius for the sake of
brevity.
> The problem of identifying these dialects was
> well explained by 1911 Brittanica with the
> following remark. "We may now trace somewhat
> farther the development of Western Aramaic in
> Palestine; but unhappily few of the sources
> from which we derive our information can be
> thoroughly trusted. In the synagogues it was
> necessary that the reading of the Aramaic of
> Bible should be followed by an oral targum or
> trans-Targums, lation into Aramaic, the
> language of the people. The e Targum was at a
> later period fixed in writing, but the
> officially sanctioned form of the Targum to
> the Pentateuch (the so-called Targum of Onkelos)
> and of that to the prophets (the so-called
> Jonathan) was not finally settled till the
> 4th or 5th century, and not in Palestine, but
> in Babylonia. The ,redactors of the Targum
> preserved on the whole the older Palestinian d
> ialect; yet that of Babylon, which differed
> considerably from the former, exercised a
> vitiating influence.
This is interesting, and I would remind you that Stevenson argued in
favor of Unqelos (along with the Yerushalmi and the relevant Midrashim)
serving as a source for understanding the Aramaic speech of Palestine
in the first century. So this is *somewhat* in agreement with sources I
have called to witness.
> The text of the Targums was punctuated later
> in Babylonia, in the supra-linear system there
> prevalent. Although this task was performed
> carefully, the punctuation is hardly as
> trustworthy as that of the Aramaic pieces of
> the Bible, much less the transcriptions in the
> known Tiberian system used in the European
> Targum manuscripts.
The second edition of Stevenson's work (from 1962), which I cited
earlier in this thread and have alluded to a couple times in this post,
very briefly mentions that the grammar presented therein is derived
from a comparison of the oldest manuscripts (some of them Yemeni in
origin) with a varying degree of distance from the Tiberian system so
as to determine the most accurate grammar.
> The language of Onkelos and Jonathan differs
> but little from Biblical Aramaic.
I could use this to my advantage (because if Unqelos and Jonathan are
valuable sources, and OT Aramaic is nearly the same, we could just
appeal to the Biblical verses), but the reality is that Casey and
Stevenson seem to disagree (and the appendices of Stevenson's work
compare the grammar of Unqelos and Jonathan on the one hand, and
Biblical Aramaic on the other).
> The language spoken some time afterwards by
> the Palestinian Jews, especially in Galilee,
> is exhibited in a series of rabbinical works,
> the so-called J erusaleln Targums (of which,
> however, those on the Hagiographa are in some
> cases of later date), a few Midrashic works,
> and the Jerusalem Talmud.
So this too seems to lean somewhat along the lines of Stevenson's
approach (which, again, was to cite the Yerushalmi, Unqelos, Jonathan
and relevant Midrashim as the most valuable sources for determining the
kind of Aramaic spoken in first century Palestine).
> Unfortunately all these books, of which the
> Midrashini and the Talmud contain much Hebrew
> as well as Aramaic, have not been handed down
> with care, and require to be used with great
> caution for linguistic purposes. MOREOVER, THE
> INFLUENCE OF THE OLDER LANGUAGE AND ORTHOGRAPHY
> HAS IN PART OBSCURED THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
> THESE POPULAR DIALECTS; FOR EXAMPLE, VARIOUS
> GUTTURALS ARE STILL WRITTEN, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE
> NO LONGER PRONOUNCED. THE ADAPTATION OF THE
> SPELLING TO THE REAL PRONUNCIATION IS CARRIED
> FARTHEST IN THE JERUSALEM TALMUD, BUT NOT IN A
> CONSISTENT MANNER.
You put this in all-caps to demonstrate a point, but I'm not sure what
point that is. The text seems to be stating that later forms do not
pronounce certain gutterals (i.e. but they are kept in the spelling
because they were there in the older versions of Aramaic). From the
very passage in Eruvin that you cited, however, we know that among
educated speakers of Aramaic, pronunciation of the gutterals was
considered quite important, so are these later forms post-Talmudic?
Furthermore, doesn't this evolution show that Aramaic is quite varied?
> Besides, all these books are without
> vowel-points;
I'm generally ignorant of when and how the niqqudot/nuqat entered into
the various Semitic languages, but I have briefly seen various theories
putting it near the time that Islam developed (could Yusuf or Anonmoos
perhaps elaborate on this, with cited references?). So, regardless of
whether the speakers of Hebrew and Aramaic adopted the practice from
the Arab Muslims or vice versa, the above would be true of all texts
dating before the advent of the voweling systems, whether they be the
Jewish Aramaic sources, or the Christian Syriac sources.
> but the frequent use of vowel-letters in
> the later Jewish works renders this defect
> less noticeable.
Stevenson argues precisely this, though it is often with regard to
verbs, and I am not certain how this will help us with the proper
pronunciation of yod-shin-vav-ayn.
> Attempts have been made latterly to utilize
> the above mentioned books as a means of
> reconstructing to some extent the dialect
> spoken by Jesus and the Apostles, and of
> retranslating the utterances of Jesus into
> their original Galilaean form. This, however,
> is a far too venturesome undertaking. How far
> these Jewish works actually exhibit the
> Galilean language can hardly be definitely
> determined; and to this must be added the
> inexactitude of the traditional text, and,
> finally, the by no means inconsiderable
> difference in time.
This too does not seem to be in your favor. Note that Syriac texts
(such as the Peshitta) were never cited as a source. Furthermore, this
passage alludes to precisely the problem Casey spoke of in the passage
from p. 89 of his book, quoted above. Many decades later, Casey notes,
the approach is a bit more refined, with the Dead Sea scrolls serving
as a primary source (and the texts noted in your Brittanica passage and
the work of Stevenson serving as a less valued, secondary source).
> I suggest that you do read these notes
> carefully...as I am getting tired of
> repeating the same things over and over
> again
I believe I have done just that, and wrote an unneccesarily long amount
of commentary on these quotes, so as not to be accused of avoiding
them, even though they do not seem to do any violence to my arguments.
> As I keep stating-but you and Anonmoos
> don't seem to be listening-Greek is
> irrelevant to this discussion because
> it greatly distorted Hebrew/Aramaic
> expressions and names. IT IS NOT
> HELPFUL AT ALL.
Indeed you keep repeating this claim as if it were some sort of brute
fact. However, you are simply wrong. Check the work by Casey that you
called to witness, as well as the overwhelming majority of the books
referenced in his bibliography, and you'll see that there is a
scholarly concensus that Semiticisms can be accurately adduced from the
Greek text of the NT.
In a post from last November 8th, Yusuf B. Gursey explained this to you
in a way similar to what has been said by Anonmoos and myself:
"[The Greek is] useful because the vowels were not written down at the
time in Hebrew and Aramaic. on the whole, the Greek renditions in the
Scritpures were done by native speakers of Hebrew and Aramaic and they
correspond quite closely to the Masoretic tradition, and are quite
reliable."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=222ae656.04110...@posting.google.com
At the time, you missed his point, and asked a question that was
already answered by Yusuf: "Why not use Aramaic which is still spoken
today as a tool to guess those ancient pronunciations[?]" The answer,
which I shall get to below, is that we can use Aramaic too, not did
anyone argue against doing such, but the transliterations of a European
language gives us insight with regard to vowels (as was noted by
Yusuf).
Now, several months later, you continue to miss this point, as can be
gleaned from your response to Anonmoos on February 7:
"Forget the Geek! In Geek language, Yahushua, Yashua, Easho, Easo, and
Aiso, are written the same, so it makes no difference, and it proves
nothing."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1107841301....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
You are mistaken, mainly due to a case of putting the cart before the
horse. An instance where yod-shin-vav-ayn is pronounced Yeshu/Yeshua
would result in it being transliterated into Greek along the lines of
Iesou. Were the vowels different, a transliteration performed by a
native speaker would almost certainly reflect this fact. As I have
noted, the method is not fool proof, but the way a Semitic word or name
is transliterated into a European script can provide tremendous insight
into how it was pronounced at the time.
> 1. What we find in the New Testament is the
> (corrupted) Greek transliteration of this
> Aramaic expression, not Aramaic itself.
> Without Aramaic, which is still spoken,
> these Greek transliterations would have
> presented such a distorted view that it
> would have been impossible to guess the
> original Aramaic/Hebrew expressions or names.
Keep in mind that this is within the context of the post from Feb 2,
where I discuss the cry on the cross. With regard to names, this issue
was explained above, and has been explained previously by Yusuf and
Anonmoos. With regard to sayings, this is the basis of attempts at
finding Semiticisms in the NT (hence the very serious scholarship of
Casey and many others). The transliteration allows us to adduce the
vocalization of the relevant phrase. That was the point of my post, and
you ignored the many arguments I presented.
However, in an attempt to make it clear, let's use a hypothetical
situation as an analogy. Let's pretend that there is a theory that
Jesus' primary language was close to modern Arabic, and then pretend
further that recent developments in text-critical NT scholarship
results in the following being the best reading of the quote attributed
to Jesus (i.e. recent finds reveal that this is the best attested
reading of the manuscripts):
http://lubienski.com/pictures/psalm22-grecco-arab-translit.jpg
This is just an image I created this morning, but let us pretend it is
the reading best attested by recently found manuscripts and fragments.
The vocalization of this transliteration is shockingly close to what
the Arabic rendering of the phrase would be, and if this were the best
reading, it would lean in favor of the hypothesis that Jesus (or the
early Christian community) spoke Arabic as a primary language (i.e. the
language they quoted the scriptures in).
> 2. Even where this expression is noted
> i.e. Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46, it is
> not consistent. Mark has "Eloi Eloi lamma
> sabachthani" [epsilon-lamda-omega-iota for
> Eloi and using two 'mu' in lamma] while
> Matthew has "heli heli lama sabachthani"
> [eta-lamda-iota and using one 'mu' for lama].
One or two mu's does not make a significant difference. Though
according to the Textus Criticus of Nestle & Aland (edited by Metzger,
et al) I checked, the best reading for *both* gospels is with a single
mu. However, in these readings, the difference between Eloi and Eli
still stands. Nonetheless, I do not consider this very significant, as
such a difference appears even in the TaNaKh. Note for example the
nearly identical quotes attributed to David in 2 Samuel 22:3 (and the
verses that follow) and Psalms 18:3 (and the verses that follow). The
passage in Psalms makes reference to "Eli tsoori" [alef-lamed-yod
tsade-vav-reysh-yod], "my God is my rock." The corresponding passage in
Samuel has alef-lamed-heh-yod tsade-vav-reysh-yod. This latter passage
has been alternatively vocalized "elohai" and "elohei" [my God vs. the
God]. Many Christian translations into English side with the former
reading, while certain Jewish translations into English agree with the
latter. Unqelos sides with the latter understanding (translating it
"elahaa"), and the Peshitta to the verse agrees with the former, while
still other Aramaic and Syriac translations vary, as was noted by
Greenberg [cf. Gilian Greenberg, "The Peshitta to 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm
18: One Translation or Two?" Journal for the Aramaic Bible, vol. 2, no.
1, p. 18].
As you no doubt know, the verse in Psalms 22 which is the source of the
cry on the cross employs "Eli," while the verse that follows employs
"Elohai," both meaning "my God." Elohai (literally "my Eloh," with a
possessive yod suffix attached to the word) may have once been
pronounced "Elohi". Either way, Elohai and Elohi could very easily be
rendered Eloi when transliterated into Greek (the Arabic
transliteration presented in the image above takes a similar approach
to dealing with the heh/haa). You can side with whichever reading you
prefer, as both can easily be Hebrew, and I know of no example of
"Elohi/Elohai/Eloi" being extant in Aramaic texts (which employ "Elahi"
for "my God"), though I'm open to correction. So regardless, my point
still stands that this Aramaic phrase attributed to Jesus, as put forth
in the transliterated Greek, implies that the Aramaic spoken by Jesus
(or the early Christian community) was *very* close to Hebrew (my
points about the conjugation of the verb lishboq further pushed this
point).
On a mildly related side note, in my original post on this subject, I
wondered aloud about the use of "lama" and if it is Aramaic. Casey even
concedes that "The word [lamah] is perfectly good Hebrew" [p. 9], but
then notes that it also appears in the Aramaic text of Ezra 4:22. Also,
two other books (from a single author) establish it as also being
Aramaic: (1) Michael Sokoloff, "A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods," (Bar Ilan, 2002), p. 630.
(2) Sokoloff, "A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the
Byzantine Period," (Bar Ilan, 1990), p. 284. For each entry, both
sources list if any exact Syriac equivalent exists (i.e. exact same
spelling). No exact Syriac equivalent is listed here, and as was noted
in my original post on the subject, the Peshitta employs a different
word (with a nun present).
> The Codez Bezae Cantabrigiensis, which is
> one of the oldest codex has "halei helei
> lama zaphthanei."
Yes, I know. And other manuscripts have other things. This is where the
critical text comes in, as the overwhelming majority of manuscripts
(including ancient ones as old as or older than Bezae Cantabrigiensis)
side with sabachthani.
> None of these are anywhere close to the
> Aramaic, "Ali Ali, metul ma sh'beqtani,"
> or in another version "Alahi Alahi, lamah
> shebaqtani." [I am assuming that these were
> taken from Targums (targumim)
First, none of these readings square exactly with extant Aramaic texts,
which was precisely my point. The phrase (whether it employs Eloi or
Eli) is very Hebrew in nature, including the employment of an 'a' vowel
between the first two radicals of the verb. As for your sources of the
two quotes you gave, the former is from Unqelos, and the latter is
merely a reconstruction provided by the Bismika Allaahuma site (though
it is a sensible translation as well, and one close to Hebrew, though
the Greek transliteration implies one even closer).
> Although there is some controversy on
> whether Jesus could have even used this
> expression, no Biblical scholar has ever
> said that Jesus was reciting Psalms 22:2
> in Hebrew.
Actually, see page 9 of Casey's book, which you cited, as it lists a
couple of scholars who have argued precisely that. Casey argues against
it, however, and I myself agreed that, while the grammar is perfect
Hebrew, the shin-bet-qof root does not seem to be part of Hebrew. Hence
my point that this phrase implies a kind of Aramaic that is very close
to Hebrew (closer than what we find in the Peshitta or Unqelos). As for
whether Jesus really uttered it, I agree that is debatable.
Nonetheless, it represents first century Aramaic (as it appears in two
first century texts). So none of these points you have raised are
problematic for my original argument from Feb 2, which I recommend you
take another look at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1107382372.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
By the way, the article on the Bismika Allaahuma site that you failed
to give credit to (despite lifting the information wholesale from it)
concludes, based on the differences between the two gospels, that this
can be grounds on which to reject the theory of Markan primacy (see the
conclusion). Do you agree with this? I ask because, while I am not
positively asserting that Jesus actually said this, if Markan primacy
falls, we end up having two first century texts independently reporting
that Jesus said it.
> One reason you might be confused is that
> when Jews used to speak Aramaic, it was
> sometimes referred to as "Hebrew" by some
> Jews.
I'm not confused in the least. I understand the differences between the
grammar of Hebrew and certain dialects of Aramaic, and this was a
grammatical question. The point was that this Aramaic phrase implies a
version of Aramaic that is, grammatically speaking, nearly identical to
Hebrew.
> The problem with your (and Anonmoos') argument
> is a strong European bias, that everything has
> to have a seal of approval from 'beloved'
> Greeks and Jews.
This is nothing more than yet another attempt at poisoning the well.
The appeal to Greek has already been explained above, and several times
in the past. While the method is not fool proof, it gives us insight
with regard to how the transliterator believed the word/name was
vocalized.
> > > 4. Jesus' name in Aramaic is Eisho/Eishaw
>
> > You keep asserting this. Some Aramaic speakers
> > today employ pronunciations similar to this, and
> > others *DON'T*. You're arbitrarily picking the
> > one that suits you best.
>
> All of them pronounce it as Easho/Easha. What you
> were looking at was the web site with WORD TO WORD
> TRANSLATIONS, NOT TRANSLITERATIONS.]
This is flatly wrong, and I wonder why you repeat this false claim so
confidently. I get the feeling that you pulled this claim out of thin
air and then it (amazingly!) became true for you the instant you
finished typing it. But let's drive this point home. In the post by
Yusuf from Nov 8, linked to above, he wrote the following:
[---Begin Quote---]
I think you are confusing "Western / Eastern" Aramaic with "Western /
Eastern" Syriac. the consonantal skeleton of both are the same, the
voweling is different. the Peshitta was originally written without
vowel signs, later two different traditions of vocalization, and thus
recitation, developed, Western and Eastern Syriac.
[...]
Western Syriac, which is geographically closer (Syria) has ye*sh*u:3
i.e. yod (rbASA, i.e. epsilon) shin (3SASA, i.e. omicron ypsilon) 3ayn
[---End Quote---]
In your response, you waved off the reference to the Syriac equivalent
of the niqqudot/nuqat as mere "speculation," and several months later,
you're still misinformed on the subject. I went to the Orientalism
division of the main research library here in Manhattan, and it took me
all of 90 seconds to find a vocalized Syriac New Testament. I flipped
through George Anton Kiraz' "Comparative Edition of the Syriac
Gospels," (E.J. Brill, 1996), which provides an interlinear alignment
of the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean versions. Just
as Yusuf told you months ago, a r'basa was above the yod, and an 'esasa
appeared above the shin, giving us the vocalization "Yeshua". So yes,
some Peshitta texts render it Yeshua. That is the reason the Peshitta
website renders it as such.
> You can ask ANY Aramaic speaking person
> and he/she would tell you that Jesus'
> name is pronounced Easho/Easha in Aramaic.
Actually, way back when I first discussed this with Shibli (a couple
years back or so), I went around the net e-mailing people. Some said
Eesho, some said Eshoa, but the majority actually said Yeshua. None
said Eesha or Eesa. As for the name yod-shin-vav-ayn in general, every
Jewish text I have consulted vocalizes it Y'shua (this includes the
Hebrew Bible, the Aramaic texts found therein, Talmud Bavli, Unqelos,
et cetera). Greek renderings of the name (from the Septuagint and NT)
transliterate it "Iesou," which, as has already been noted by Anonmoos,
Yusuf & myself, gives insight into how the various transliteraters
vocalized it.
> > > Most likely, the 'ayn' wasn't there to
> > > begin with
>
> > Again, wrong. The ayn is there in the
> > Peshitta, the ayn is there in the TaNaKh,
> > and if I'm not mistaken, the ayn is there
> > in early Christian inscriptions bearing
> > the name.
>
> [I have to scream here, as you don't seem to
> be listening] THE AYN WAS NOT PRONOUNCED
> SOMETIMES OR WAS PRONOUNCED AS HAMZA.
Well, my apologies then, as the quote from Wikipedia confused me (as it
seemed to equivocate with regard to how the verb "drop" is employed),
since the ayn was literally dropped in the Talmud reference to Yeshu
ha-Notsri. Point 7 from your post from February third also seemed to be
making reference to the ayn being literally dropped, not just vocally.
> > In closing, please see my other post (linked
> > to above), which attempts to summarize your
> > argument. If my understanding of your argument
> > is correct, then it is fallacious. If I am
> > mistaken, you should elaborare on what your
> > argument is.
>
> I can summarize my own arguments. You should
> summarize only your own.
Come on now, this is a rather sophomoric reply, and it keeps us in the
dark with regard to what your precise argument is. If we're going to
examine the validity and soundness of your overall argument, it needs
to be summarized. I have attempted to summarize it in my post from Feb
2:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1107382372.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Now that a summary has been attempted, all you have to do is tell us
whether it is accurate or inaccurate. And if it is inaccurate, you just
need to make the neccesary corrections. Here I will again attempt to
summarize your argument, give my comments, and then summarize my own
argument.
SUMMARY OF 1MAN4ALL'S ARGUMENT
(1) Jesus spoke Aramaic, therefore his name should be understood in
light of Aramaic.
(2) The Aramaic rendering of Jesus' name is Eesho.
(3) People in Jesus' area switched the shin for a sin, rendering the
name Eeso.
(4) Therefore Jesus' name was either Eeso or Eesa.
If this is indeed the skeleton of 1Man's argument, then, as Anonmoos
has complained, it appears to be a conglomerate of disparate
information. The hardest premise to defend (which represents the true
leap in 1Man's argument) is the second one. It can only be justified by
appealing to *certain* Syriac texts, and ignoring almost all other
Aramaic texts (be they Syriac or otherwise). Indeed, *certain* Syriac
texts do render Jesus' name as "Eesho," but as was noted by Yusuf and
myself, others render it Yeshua. And this begs the question of why we
should give primacy to the Syriac texts. As for the third premise, it
does not fit as nicely with the second premise as 1Man would like us to
believe. As was noted, the justification of the vocalization "Eesho"
can only be gleaned from an appeal to certain Syriac texts, and while
it is true that the shin and sin are a single character in both Hebrew
and Aramaic, I know of no Syriac text that renders Eesho as Eeso. As
for the fourth proposition, the leap to "Eesa" is unexplained, but the
conclusion nonetheless can flow logically from the third premise by
virtue of the fact that it is a disjunctive assertion. In the end, it
seems, the soundness of 1Man's argument is seriously in doubt.
SUMMARY OF MY ARGUMENT
(1) Jesus' name was spelled yod-shin-vav-ayn.
(2) All Jewish texts (spanning many centuries and being both Hebrew and
Aramaic) I have consulted render this spelling as Y'shua, or in a few
rare instances, Y'shu.
(3) Greek transliterations of the name, from both before and after the
dawn of the common era, imply a vocalization along the lines of Yeshu,
thus showing that the Hebrew vocalization has changed very little (if
at all) over the last 2000+ years.
(4) Recent scholarship on the subject (such as that of Stevenson, and
far more recently Casey) gives primacy, or at least secondary weight
(after the Dead Sea scrolls) to the employment of Unqelos, the
Yerushalmi, Jonathan and the relevant Midrashim (all texts falling
within the rubric referred to in 2).
(5) The cry on the cross attributed to Jesus implies that the Aramaic
employed by the proto-Christian community was very close to Hebrew (and
certainly closer than is Syriac).
(6) Matthew 1:21 presents an obvious Hebraism which only makes sense if
Jesus' name sounds similar to a verb for "save" from the yod-shin-ayn
root (such as hoshia, of the hiph'il verbal stem), thus implying that
the earliest Christian community sided with a pronunciation along the
lines of Y'shua.
(7) Premises 4-6 push us towards forming our understanding within the
paradigm of the general Hebrew and/or Jewish Aramaic framework noted in
2.
(8) The combined weight of 1-7 leads to the conclusion that Jesus' name
was most probably pronounced Y'shua (or, at worst, the closely related
Yeshu).
In conclusion, I hope 1Man4All will comment on my summary of his
argument (and elaborate where he feels neccesary), as well as comment
on my summary of my own argument.
...
-Shaykhul-Ishraak, Abdul-Khinzeer Abu Khamr al-Mushrik
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
<news:1107971584.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> ...
Unfortunately, readers who use google.com will not be able to use the
links I provided to other usenet posts (though users of google.de and
other newsreaders will), as google groups' new "Beta" system mangles
the three characters preceding the "at" ["@"] symbol in any link.
I linked to three usenet posts, and will give links that can be
accessed even by readers employing google.com...
Yusuf B. Gursey's post from November 8th can be found here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/1d93f67b3f1e9547
1Man4All's post from February 7th can be found here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/4f46b3d17bb49184
My post from February 2nd can be found here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/ab09ac16d83c4868
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
> ...
Just wanted to make a few comments...
> > > there is no direct evidence that Jesus
> > > was called Yehoshua or Yeshua,
>
> > Whatever --
>
> In the past few months, I have come to realize that
> when you are loosing a debate, you start your
> 'whatevers.'
If you want to argue that Anonmoos employed the disdainful phrase
"whatever" out of frustration, you'd probably be correct, but you would
be wrong if you though this (alleged) frustration stems from losing the
debate. Anonmoos has not been losing the debate, but it does become
tiresome trying to explain, over and over again, the evidence in favor
of the vocalization "Yeshua".
> I have never denied that the name "Yahushua" may have
> become "Yeshua" by Ezra's time. But ALMOST FOUR
> HUNDRED YEARS LATER, when Jesus was born,
> "Yeshua" itself may have become "Easho/Easo"
> because of Aramaic influence.
But, as has already been noted, the Greek text of the NT, certain
Syriac versions of the NT, and all Jewish Aramaic sources imply that
"Yeshua/Yeshu" was still in use many centuries after. I'd be curious if
you can actually date the earliest vocalization as "Eesho" (though I
imagine this would take several hours in a library, and thus represent
information that is not so easily mined from the net).
> Whether it's Talmud, language spoken by Mandeans
> (followers of John the Baptist); Samaritans; Gallileans;
> or even modern Aramaic speakers, the AYN that you
> keep obsessing about was/is either not written or not
> pronounced.
Actually, as I noted in my post from Feb 6th, there are passages in
Bavli where the ayn in Y'shua is both written and pronounced. This is
natural, as just about every name that appears in the TaNaKh appears
somewhere in Bavli, and the pronunciations/vocalizations are identical
to those found in the TaNaKh. Furthermore, it seems you have forgetten
about the passage from Eiruvin in Bavli that you yourself cited, which
shows that even in Talmudic times the employment of the ayn as a
phoneme wholly separate from the alef and the chet was taken very
seriously.
> Furthermore, there is only circumstantial evidence that
> Jesus knew Hebrew; after all, he was a carpenter, not
> a priest.
Maybe you should read what Maurice Casey wrote regarding this, as he is
far more in agreement with Anonmoos than with you.
> That's also like saying that once some guy called David
> learns Hebrew he should change his name to Hebrew
> "Doud" or "Daveed."
Actually, Jews who are Frum ("Orthodox"), especially the
Ultra-Orthodox, go by the Hebrew names rather than the versions that
exist in the language of the land they live in (exempli gratia: Dovid
instead of David, Moshe instead of Moses, Shlomo instead of Solomon, et
cetera).
> Although all languages go through transformations, it
> is highly unlikely that Aramaic speaking Christians--
> many of whom are descendants of the earliest followers
> of Jesus-- would change the name of their own Lord?
As has already been pointed out to you, even in Syriac texts there are
different vocalizations for the name, so the answer is yes.
> > > Attempts have been made latterly to utilize the above
> > > mentioned books as a means of reconstructing to
> > > some extent the dialect spoken by Jesus and the
> > > Apostles, and of retranslating the utterances of
> > > Jesus into their original Galilaean form. This,
> > > however, is a far too venturesome undertaking.
> > > the by no means inconsiderable difference in time.
>
> > In other words the most familiar form of "Classical"
> > Syriac of later centuries is of limited value for
> > determining 1st Century A.D. Galilean or Judean
> > WESTERN Aramaic.
>
> Somehow you have this mistaken notion in your
> mind that Jews spoke Western Aramaic and
> Eastern Aramaic was spoken by "others."
1Man, I hope you realize that this statement has nothing to do with the
quoted text you were responding to. Anonmoos was showing how one of the
very sources you cited (the Brittanica entry) agrees with the point he
has been trying to get across: just using any dialect can be highly
problematic.
> > > Greek is irrelevant to this discussion
>
> > The hell it ain't! It's one line of evidence which
> > should be considered -- together with all of the
> > other available evidence -- in applying the
> > process of scientific linguistic historical
> > reconstruction in order to arrive at a
> > well-founded reconstruction of how the
> > name of Jesus would have been pronounced
> > in the 1st. century A.D.
>
> I have already indicated that even within NT,
> there is no consistency, so how can it ever
> be used to determine pronunciations in a
> foreign language?
You've thoroughly confused yourself. Anonmoos is arguing precisely what
has been argued by Yusuf, and even myself: the Greek transliteration
provides insight with regard to how the consonantal skeleton was
vocalized at the time. He is making a reference to the name, and you're
making reference to the fact that the cry attributed to Jesus on the
cross has him say "Eloi" in one gospel and "Eli" in another. These are
two completely different issues.
> > However, Greek provides information about the
> > VOWELS of the name Y-Sh-W-` which can't
> > be found in Semitic writing until the creation of
> > the various systems of vowel diacritics beginning
> > around 500 A.D. So Greek provides information
> > about the CONTEMPORARY (2nd century B.C.
> > to 1st century A.D.) pronunciation of the vowels
> > of the name which simply isn't available from
> > Aramaic writings.
>
> As I have stated too many times already,
> ARAMAIC IS A LIVING LANGUAGE...WESTERN
> ARAMIAC, EASTERN ARAMAIC...NO MATTER
> HOW YOU SPIN IT, IS STILL SPOKEN TODAY
> BY JEWS IN ISRAEL. It is just laughable that
> you are judging the pronunciation of a language
> by using some other language which is not even
> remotely related!
You keep missing the point, and you avoided his precise argument. The
Greek transliteration provides vocalization from a time in which the
niqqudot had not yet been created. Let me try to drive this point home.
How do we determine how yod-shin-vav-ayn was pronounced? We can simply
consult a text held by speakers of Hebrew or Aramaic. The vocalization
in Ezra, Divrei ha-Yamim, and even tractates Megillah and Arakhin in
Bavli all side with Y'shua. But wait, I bet now you're going to argue
that simply consulting *any* Hebrew or Aramaic text will not do, as
maybe a certain vocalization represents a later evolution in
pronunciation or the pointed text. Once we reach this wall, one begs
the question how we choose which Aramaic text to consult. Furthermore,
if pronunciations can change, how do we glean what the pronunciation
was like in a time that predates the vocalized text? While this method
is not fool proof, it seems we can make recourse to how the name was
transliterated into a European language, which provides insight with
regard to vowels.
> It is possible that even Greeks living in Palestine called
> Jesus "Ieso"
To avoid confusion, I think you should know that the combination of
iota-eta in Greek does not produce the same phoneme as you would get
with alif-yod with a hireyq or alif-yaa with a kasraa. The Greek
combination is closer in sound to what you would get with a Hebrew yod
with a segol underneath it.
> Aramaic speaking people have always called Jesus
> Easho/Easo/Eishaw
How do you know this? Because certain Syriac texts render it as Eesho?
Because certain websites offer the reading Eesho? What is your evidence
that Eesho (much less Eeso or Eeshaw!) has "always" been employed by
Aramaic speakers?
> Also, if you are writing Aramaic name Eiso/Eisaw in
> Arabic, how will you write it if not with an AYN?
In the case of both Israel and Ishmael, the yod became an alif [with a
kasra under it] when rendered in the Qur'an. For a longer sound (ee vs.
i), maybe this is a point of interest. Are there any Arabic words that
begin with a long 'ee' sound and do not begin with ayn-yaa? I don't
know...
AnonMoos
references to Google Groups messages (with "selm=") will still work.
As for the chronology of systems of vowel points, Syriac seems to have
been the first, ca. 500 A.D. The full system of Arabic vowel marks
was not developed until at least a hundred years after Muhammad's
death. As for Hebrew, the fully-elaborated Tiberian vowel diacritic
system doesn't appear until after 800 A.D., but it seems to be the
result of several centuries of development involving several different
sytems (all no doubt originally inspired by the example of Syriac).
AnonMoos
on the most accurate pronunciations of the name of Jesus in certain
Semitic languages located at
http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm . This should
make Gursey's transcriptions of Syriac pronunciations absolutely
clear. Of course, if you understand neither Gursey's ASCII
transcriptions nor my phonetic symbol transcriptions, then silence
might be the better part of discretion.
Pay special attention to the reversed-question-mark looking symbol!
Yusuf B Gursey
AnonMoos wrote:
> For the benefit of 1MAN4ALL and others I've just improved my diagram
> on the most accurate pronunciations of the name of Jesus in certain
> Semitic languages located at
> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm . This should
> make Gursey's transcriptions of Syriac pronunciations absolutely
3i:sa" is "found in the Qur'an" but thjat is not its earliest
attestation.
Yusuf B Gursey
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> <news:1107841301....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> > Also, if you are writing Aramaic name Eiso/Eisaw in
> > Arabic, how will you write it if not with an AYN?
>
> In the case of both Israel and Ishmael, the yod became an alif [with
a
> kasra under it] when rendered in the Qur'an. For a longer sound (ee
vs.
> i), maybe this is a point of interest. Are there any Arabic words
that
> begin with a long 'ee' sound and do not begin with ayn-yaa? I don't
> know...
yes, quite a few. in rthge derived forms of verbs begining with hamza
the combination *'i'- (hamza-kasra-hmaza) yield (acc. a phonological
rule)
the result 'i:- (i.e. the second hamza is dropped, this works for any
vowel), resulting in words with 'i:-
among loanwords there is 'i:wa:n (possibly of persian origin) "a type
of hall or entrance" and 'i:qu:na(t) "icon" (form greek)
1MAN4ALL
> Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> > > Also, if you are writing Aramaic name Eiso/Eisaw in
> > > Arabic, how will you write it if not with an AYN?
> >
> > In the case of both Israel and Ishmael, the yod became an alif
[with
> a
> > kasra under it] when rendered in the Qur'an. For a longer sound (ee
> vs.
> > i), maybe this is a point of interest. Are there any Arabic words
> that
> > begin with a long 'ee' sound and do not begin with ayn-yaa? I don't
> > know...
Responding to Yusuf Gursey, Anonmoos and Khinzeer:
One point that all three of you have made is that the letter AYN at the
beginning of the Arabic name for Jesus (Easa) is a "problem." However,
upon looking at my dictionary with roots of Quranic words, I was able
to find at least two words that are common to Arabic and Hebrew which
begin with AYN even though the Hebrew equivalents do not have an AYN.
This totally disproves your theory that somehow AYN in Easa was unique,
or perhaps a mistake. It seems that it is not unusual at all, and I am
sure that if I keep looking, I would find other words like that.
The two examples:
IN ARABIC: Azal [AYN-ZAA-LAM}, means: "To set aside, remove from, to
withdraw."
IN HEBREW: Azal [ALEF-ZAIN-LAMED], means: "To go away."
IN SYRIAC/CHALDEE: [AYN-ZAYN-LAMADH], means "to separate, to go away."
As you can see that at least the word 'Azl' is spelled one way in
Arabic and Syriac/Chaldee and the other way in Hebrew, which was not
even a spoken language during Jesus' time. What this means is that
there is nothing sacred about AYN and old Semitic words which were
written with ALIF or YODH were often written with AYN in other Semitic
languages by Jesus' time.
---------------------
Arabic root word: Atab [AYN-TAA-BAA] means "pleasing"
Hebrew word: Yatab {YOD-TET-BET] which means " to be pleasing"
Note that Atab has AYN but 'Ytab' has no AYN.
---------------------
Now, in all the variations of 'Atab' in Arabic, you can find an AYN.
Not so in Hebrew where YODH substituted for AYN.
> yes, quite a few. in rthge derived forms of verbs begining with hamza
> the combination *'i'- (hamza-kasra-hmaza) yield (acc. a phonological
> rule)
> the result 'i:- (i.e. the second hamza is dropped, this works for any
> vowel), resulting in words with 'i:-
>
> among loanwords there is 'i:wa:n (possibly of persian origin) "a type
> of hall or entrance" and 'i:qu:na(t) "icon" (form greek)
Actually that "'i:wa:n" is pronounced Aywaan, not Eiwan and it means
palace or mansion. Nor sure what's the second word.
1MAN4ALL
AnonMoos wrote:
> For the benefit of 1MAN4ALL and others I've just improved my diagram
> on the most accurate pronunciations of the name of Jesus in certain
> Semitic languages located at
> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm . This should
> make Gursey's transcriptions of Syriac pronunciations absolutely
> clear. Of course, if you understand neither Gursey's ASCII
> transcriptions nor my phonetic symbol transcriptions, then silence
> might be the better part of discretion.
>
> Pay special attention to the reversed-question-mark looking symbol!
I can tell you that your web site and "diagrams" are a joke.
Summary
I have already rebutted most of these foolish assertions. The earliest
evidence for the vocalization of Jesus' name is in Aramaic. You have
presented no other evidence except referring to Greek, which is perhaps
the worst language to transliterate Aramaic names. Aramaic spells the
name with AYN at the end, but it is not pronounced. {This I have
verified through very reliable sources]. Jesus' name in Aramaic is
Eisho/Eiso, which only in RECENT times is sometimes pronounced as
Yeshua by 'some' Aramaic speaking people living in the West--mostly
because of modern Jewish/Christian Arabic influence. And because the
AYN was not pronounced, most likely Talmud authors also omitted the
AYN, and the way they spelled it, YODH-SHIN-WOW, must have been made
into an acronym "Yemach Shmo w'Zikro" later on. It is fairly common
that first there is a name and then it's spelling is used as an acronym
for something else, not vice versa. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
also confirms that Talmud often drops guttural sounds that were no
longer pronounced, but it does not do so consistently.
Responding to Yusuf Gursey, Anonmoos and Khinzeer:
One point that all three of you have made is that letter AYN at the
beginning of the Arabic name for Jesus (Easa) is a "problem." However,
upon looking at my dictionary with roots of Quranic words, I was able
to find at least two words that are common to Arabic and Hebrew which
begin with AYN even though the Hebrew equivalents do not have an AYN.
This totally disproves your theory that somehow AYN in Easa was unique,
or perhaps a mistake. It seems that it is not unusual at all, and I am
sure there are other words like that.
IN ARABIC: Azal [AYN-ZAA-LAM}, means: "To set aside, remove from, to
withdraw."
IN HEBREW: Azal [ALEF-ZAIN-LAMED], means: "To go away."
IN SYRIAC/CHALDEE: [AYN-ZAYN-LAMADH], means "to separate, to go away."
As you can see that at least the word Azl is spelled one way in Arabic
and Syriac/Chaldee and the other way in Hebrew, which was not even a
spoken language during Jesus' time. What this means is that there is
nothing sacred about AYN and old Semitic words which were written with
ALIF or YODH were often written with AYN in another language.
---------------------
Arabic root word: Atab [AYN-TAA-BAA] means "pleasing"
Hebrew word: Yatab {YOD-TET-BET] which means " to be pleasing"
Note that Atab has AYN but Ytab has no AYN
AnonMoos
First of all, a loanword (such as a name which was borrowed from
language A into language B) is completely different from a cognate
correspondence (i.e. a stem which has been inherited by both
language A and language B from a historical ancestor language).
Cognate forms are related by rules which reflect the different sets of
historical sound changes which have occurred separately over the
course of the histories of language A and language B. Loanwords are
(ideally) adapted from one language to another using the closest
rendition of the original language A name which is possible within the
contemporary sounds and structures of language B.
So in English "father" is the cognate correspondence of Latin "pater",
but when the Latin adjective "paternalis" was borrowed from Latin into
English, the part of the word preceding the case endings was borrowed
by sounds as "paternal", not "fathernal".
Therefore proto-Semitic correspondences between Hebrew and Arabic
roots are basically completely irrelevant to the question of how a
name would have been borrowed from Hebrew/Aramaic into Arabic in the
early Christian period (thousands of years after proto-Semitic!).
And furthermore, one of your attempted etymologies is completely and
uitterly bogus -- the Hebrew root which has both the forms y-T-b and
T-w-b is cognate with the Arabic roots T-w-b and T-y-b. The Arabic
root `Ayn-T-b means "to perish, to be destroyed", not anything to do
with goodness at all!!!!!!!!!! (Here "T" = Hebrew Tet and the
corresponding Arabic letter, which has no dots.)
In short, you've done nothing to cast doubt on the general
proto-Semitic etymological correspondence between the Hebrew `Ayin
sound and the Arabic `Ayn sound, but even if you had, this would be
almost completely irrelevant to the manner in which later loanwords
from Hebrew would be adapted to Arabic structures.
AnonMoos
>AnonMoos wrote:
>> For the benefit of 1MAN4ALL and others I've just improved my
>> diagram on the most accurate pronunciations of the name of Jesus in
>> certain Semitic languages located at
>> http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm . This
>> should make Gursey's transcriptions of Syriac pronunciations
>> absolutely clear. Of course, if you understand neither Gursey's
>> ASCII transcriptions nor my phonetic symbol transcriptions, then
>> silence might be the better part of discretion.
>> Pay special attention to the reversed-question-mark looking symbol!
> I can tell you that your web site and "diagrams" are a joke.
The true "joke" is your stupid idiotic attempts at transcriptions of
the sounds of any language which is not written with the Latin
alphabet -- meaningless nonsensical gibberish such as "Eishoa" and
"ARAAFAATH", which ignominiously fails to even rise to the level of a
rough-and-ready yet serviceable Berlitz phrase-book transcription.
It's hard to even engage in any meaningful discussion with you, when
you conspicuously fail to understand the simplest and most basic
principles of accurate phonetic/phonemic transcription -- or more
precisely, why such accurate transcriptions are needed for linguistic
purposes in the first place.
You can take a "Linguistics 101" course at your local university if
you have any honest desire to remedy your more glaring deficiencies in
this area -- but in the meantime, since you have zilch knowledge of
Linguistics, Hebrew, or Aramaic beyond what you cut-and-paste from
random web-pages you stumble across in Google searches, you would save
yourself future embarassment if you didn't continue to patronizingly
condescendly smarm your rehashed third-hand Wikipedia nonsense onto
those of us who have some direct knowledge of these topics as a result
of first-hand study.
Whether http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm
represents the ultimate truth or not, it has one immense advantage
over everything that you've written -- it uses CLEAR ACCURATE PHONETIC
TRANSCRIPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! You would be well-advised to take it for
your model, in which case we wouldn't have any more of this "Eeshoa"
nonsense (good riddance! -- a consummation devoutly to be wished).
Tony Cox
>
> AnonMoos wrote:
> >
> > Pay special attention to the reversed-question-mark looking symbol!
>
> I can tell you that your web site and "diagrams" are a joke.
Remind me, 1MAN. What's the theological dimension in this?
Why are you so motivated to prove that "Jesus" is pronounced
a particular way?
1MAN4ALL
Tony Cox wrote:
> Remind me, 1MAN. What's the theological dimension in this?
> Why are you so motivated to prove that "Jesus" is pronounced
> a particular way?
It's the opposite. My position is that Jesus' name must have been
pronounced differently by different people, as there were so many
dialects and languages spoken during Jesus' own lifetime.
It's Mr. Anonmoos who is convinced that the ONLY way Jesus' name
could have been written or pronounced is Yashu'. His theory is based
on the following: Greek has translated the name Yahushua [used in the
Torah] and Yashua [used in Ezra-Nehemiah], as Iesous. Then the same
word Iesous was used for Jesus by NT authors. So Jesus' name must
have been Yeshua (or Yeshu' as he prefers). The problem with this
theory is that because of the limitation of the Greek language in
conveying Hebrew/Aramaic names, the only way you can write Yahushua,
Yeshua, Yeshu', Eisho, Eiso etc. is by writing Iesous. So Greek
cannot be used to firmly establish the correct pronunciation of
Jesus' name. Jesus' name in Aramaic-the language that he
spoke-is Eisho or Eiso, which is sometimes pronounced as Eishaw. The
point that I keep making is why go to some other language to find the
correct pronunciations when you already have the original language
spoken today! Abdul Khinzeer made a point that even some modern
Aramaic speakers now call Jesus Yeshua. The answer is that these
Aramaic speakers have been influenced by Jewish/Christian Arabs who
have bought the "Greek-is-right" argument. Historically, the
Aramaic name of Jesus was/is Eisho, as any Aramaic scholar would tell
you.
Mr. Anonmoos' second theory was that Jesus' Arabic name Easa is
"wrong" because it starts with letter AYN. In my previous post, I
proved to him that it is not unusual for Hebrew words that begin with
YODH or ALIF to begin with AYN in Arabic. The Arabic "Easa" is not
much different from Aramaic/Syriac/Mandiac name Eisho/Eiso/Eishaw. And
that is why it was never questioned by Jews and Christians of Arabia
when Quran was revealed. He also stated that in Hebrew/Aramaic/Syriac,
the name ends with AYN but in Arabic it doesn't. I pointed out to him
that this AYN is not pronounced in Aramaic; the Talmud does not have it
[as according to 1911 Britannica, at that time Jews had started
dropping consonants which were not pronounced]; and in Mandaic language
[language spoken by followers of John the Baptist], it is used as a
Hamza [in other words, for all practical purposes it was not
pronounced]. The name Easa even appears in pre-Islamic times among
Christians living in Syria, so how can it be wrong? Furthermore, even
though Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic do share many letters, it is foolish
to compare spellings.
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
> ...
Pax Vobis!
> I have already rebutted most of these foolish
> assertions. The earliest evidence for the
> vocalization of Jesus' name is in Aramaic.
Is it? What do you mean by "vocalization"? The first time the vowels
were explicitly written down (i.e. via something akin to the niqqudot)?
If so, could you tell me how you know this (as I am unfamiliar with
this)? If this is not what you mean, what, then, *do* you mean by this?
> You have presented no other evidence except
> referring to Greek
Actually, in my own post from Feb 9, I summarized my argument, and it
was more than a simple appeal to Greek. The appeal to Greek, however,
is helpful because it gives insight with regard to where the vowels go,
and the vocalization put forth in the Greek transliteration gives the
strong impression that yod-shin-vav-ayn was pronounced the same way it
is now.
> Aramaic spells the name with AYN at the end
> but it is not pronounced.
This seems to be true of certain forms/dialects of Aramaic.
> Jesus' name in Aramaic is Eisho/Eiso, which
> only in RECENT times is sometimes pronounced as
> Yeshua by 'some' Aramaic speaking people living
> in the West--mostly because of modern Jewish/Christian
> Arabic influence.
This is an assertion on your part, and you need to present evidence in
favor of it. What is your evidence that the Eastern pronunciation
"Eesho" predates the Western pronunciation "Yeshua"? Don't just assert
that this is the case. Don't just claim that the Western Syriac
vocalization "Yeshua" is a recent development. Present some evidence. I
find it ironic, however, that suddenly you seem to think you know that
this is a recent development, when just a couple days ago you were
claiming it wasn't part of Syriac at all (you claimed the Peshitta was
merely appealing to English readers).
> And because the AYN was not pronounced, most likely
> Talmud authors also omitted the AYN, and the way they
> spelled it, YODH-SHIN-WOW, must have been made
> into an acronym "Yemach Shmo w'Zikro" later on.
Using words like "most likely," and "must," you're making positive
assertions about probabilities and modal logic, so I'm going to ask
that you provide evidence. The employment of the Gershayim imply it is
meant to be an acronym, and the fact that the ayn remains for other
people holding this name (as in Megillah and Arakhin) leans heavily in
favor of the alternate spelling being a deliberate attempt to insult.
> The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
> also confirms that Talmud often drops
> guttural sounds that were no
> longer pronounced, but it does not do so
> consistently.
Does it say precisely this? Or is this merely your interpretation of
the relevant passage? Maybe you should elaborate.
> One point that all three of you have made is
> that letter AYN at the beginning of the Arabic
> name for Jesus (Easa) is a "problem."
It is in that it shows that the name is rather different from Jesus'
real name. However, if you want to argue that *ultimately* it is
possible for Yeshua to evolve into Eesa, I will agree, as that is
probably exactly what happened (and it has evolved to various other
pronunciations in other languages, such as English Jesus, Spanish
Jesus, et cetera).
> IN ARABIC: Azal [AYN-ZAA-LAM}, means: "To set aside,
> remove from, to withdraw."
>
> IN HEBREW: Azal [ALEF-ZAIN-LAMED], means: "To go away."
These do seem to be related, or at least similar. Interesting find.
Anonmoos is not willing to bend on this, and Yusuf has thus far not
commented. I will simply concede on this issue, because yods in Hebrew
have become alifs in Arabic, and even within Hebrew or Aramaic an alif
can become an ayn or vice versa on rare occasions. So ultimately, over
a process of evolution, Y'shua can become Eesa (as well as Iesous,
Jesus, et cetera).
> Arabic root word: Atab [AYN-TAA-BAA] means "pleasing"
> Hebrew word: Yatab {YOD-TET-BET] which means " to be pleasing"
>
> Note that Atab has AYN but Ytab has no AYN
[Quick note: I don't know how to distinguish between taa, the third
letter of the Arabic alphabet, and Taa, the 16th letter of the Arabic
alphabet, using the latin characters available to us over usenet, so I
will simply refer to the former by employing a lowercase 't' and the
latter by employing an uppercase/capital 'T'.]
These don't seem to be related at all. I looked up yatab in David
Sagiv's "Milon 'Ivri-Aravi" (alternate Arabic title: "Qaamoos
'Ibree-'Arabee") [Vol. II, p. 683], and the first thing he connected it
with was yaateeb (yaa-Taa-yaa-baa, from the Taa-yaa-baa root), which
makes sense since yatab is related to the word tov (ted-vav-bet). Sagiv
makes no attempt to connect yatab with either ayn-taa-baa or
ayn-Taa-baa, and when I looked up each root in various Arabic
dictionaries I could not find the meaning 1Man has applied to it.
Regardless, I'm willing to drop the claim that the ayn is a significant
stumbling block, because the very existence of the ayn in the name Eesa
(in the Qur'an) seems to be evidence in itself that, ultimately, the
name can evolve into this form. However, I still hold that this sound
is different from the proper definition of Jesus 'real' name.
Which brings us back to the original point of dispute of this debate:
how was Jesus' name pronounced? In my my post from Feb 9...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/7d05bf9cd95567a2
...I attempted to summarize 1Man's argument and I summarized my own.
This is probably the best place to continue the discussion, as it seems
to me to be pretty clear that the evidence is in favor of Y'shua or
Yeshu. But I look forward to further contributions 1Man would like to
make.
Tony Cox
>
> Tony Cox wrote:
>
> > Remind me, 1MAN. What's the theological dimension in this?
> > Why are you so motivated to prove that "Jesus" is pronounced
> > a particular way?
>
> It's the opposite. My position is that Jesus' name must have been
> pronounced differently by different people, as there were so many
> dialects and languages spoken during Jesus' own lifetime.
For once, your hypothesis seems quite reasonable, although I've
no special knowledge here.
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
>
> It's the opposite. My position is that Jesus' name
> must have been pronounced differently by different
> people
Well, I think the further we get away from the time and place Jesus
lived, it is fairly obvious that different people pronounced the name
differently. However amongst Jews who knew him personally, I am not
convinced that the switch from Hebrew to the Aramaic they spoke was all
that different.
> It's Mr. Anonmoos who is convinced that the ONLY
> way Jesus' name could have been written or
> pronounced is Yashu'.
I can't speak for Anonmoos, but I'm guessing his position is similar to
mine: the evidence is more in favor of Jesus and his followers
pronouncing the name Yeshu/Y'shua than there is "Eesho," much less
"Eesa".
> His theory is based on the following: Greek has
> translated the name Yahushua [used in the
> Torah] and Yashua [used in Ezra-Nehemiah], as
> Iesous. Then the same word Iesous was used for
> Jesus by NT authors. So Jesus' name must
> have been Yeshua (or Yeshu' as he prefers).
This seems like a straw man to me. Let me assume Anonmoos' argument is
similar to mine (though I imagine he might prefer to keep my appeals to
the cry on the cross or Matthew 1:21 somewhat at arm's length, so I'll
leave those out for now), and then present my actual argument with the
understanding that Anonmoos' argument is roughly similar (if I
misrepresent his argument, he can point out where). Jesus' name is
spelled yod-shin-vav-ayn. The way this name is vocalized in Hebrew and
Aramaic texts within the Jewish world is as Y'shua (or Yeshu). Of
course, it may be possible that the vocalization of this consonantal
skeleton was different in times predating the advent of the niqqudot.
Looking at the way the Septuagint (which predates the times Jesus
lived) and the NT (which closely follows the time Jesus lived)
transliterates the name into Greek gives the strong impression that the
vocalization employed in Jesus' time was quite similar (if not
identical) to the way it is pronounced now.
> The problem with this theory is that because of
> the limitation of the Greek language in
> conveying Hebrew/Aramaic names, the only way you
> can write Yahushua, Yeshua, Yeshu', Eisho, Eiso
> etc. is by writing Iesous.
Um, no, this is wrong. If a different vocalization was used for
yod-shin-vav-ayn, it is certainly possible that a different
transliteration could have been employed. For example, if an 'a' or 'o'
sound was vocalized after the yod, that could have been conveyed by the
Greek. So too, an 'O' sound (rather than an 'oo' sound) could be
conveyed as well. The Greek text provides a transliteration, and that
transliteration gives us insight into how the consonantal skeleton was
vocalized (as has been pointed out by Yusuf, Anonmoos, and myself).
> Jesus' name in Aramaic-the language that he
> spoke-is Eisho or Eiso, which is sometimes
> pronounced as Eishaw.
How do you know this? You assert this, but you don't seem to have any
evidence aside from the fact that *certain* speakers of Syriac employ
this vocalization.
> The point that I keep making is why go to some
> other language to find the correct pronunciations
> when you already have the original language
> spoken today!
Do we have the original language today? See the book by Maurice Casey
which you appealed to. We have different variations of Aramaic
available to us, and if we wish to reconstruct the Aramaic spoken by
Jesus and/or the proto-Christian community, we have to sift through
those versions. None of the recent scholarship I have consulted sides
in favor of using Eastern Syriac as a primary source for understanding
the type of Aramaic spoke by Jesus. If you want to know how Jews
pronounced yod-shin-vav-ayn, we can ask the Jews themselves, or consult
Jewish texts in Aramaic (such as Unqelos, or Bavli, et cetera). If a
simply appeal to vocalized Aramaic texts is not enough for you (because
vocalizations may evolve over time), we can compare the present
vocalizations with transliterations into European languages that are
contemporary to the time.
> Abdul Khinzeer made a point that even some modern
> Aramaic speakers now call Jesus Yeshua. The answer
> is that these Aramaic speakers have been
> influenced by Jewish/Christian Arabs who
> have bought the "Greek-is-right" argument.
How do you know this? Before you were claiming that it had to do with
them simply wanting to please the English speaking Christians. If
you're going to claim the Western Syriac vocalization Yeshua (which
employs the r'basa and 'esasa) postdates the Eastern-Syriac
vocalization Eesho, you have to present some evidence. Simply
proclaiming that Syriac speaking Christians suddenly (and only
recently) were influenced by Jews or Westerners will not be sufficient.
> Historically, the Aramaic name of Jesus
> was/is Eisho, as any Aramaic scholar would
> tell you.
Then cite some scholarly sources that state that the Eastern Syriac
pronunciation is the more historically accurate vocalization of
yod-shin-vav-ayn (with regard to how it was pronounced in first century
Palestine) than is the vocalization put forth by various Jewish texts,
Western Syriac texts, et cetera. Present some evidence for this claim.
> Mr. Anonmoos' second theory was that Jesus'
> Arabic name Easa is "wrong" because it starts
> with letter AYN.
I would now say that it is no more wrong than Eesho, or even Jesus.
Interestingly enough, Enno Littman, in an article titled "Jesus in a
Pre-Islamic Arabic Inscription," from the journal 'Muslim World,'
(1950, vol. xi), writes of a Thamudic inscription that spells Jesus'
name yaa-sheen-ayn-yaa [p.16] and later claims that yaa-shin-ayn is
"the ancient Arabic name of Jesus" [p. 18]. This inscription is marked
Harding No. 476, and is claimed to be "the oldest native document of
Christianity of Northern Arabia known so far" [p. 18]. Of course, I'm
ignorant of Thamudic, but wonder how one could distinguish a sheen from
a seen in any pre-Islamic Arabic text (or is this possible in
Thamudic?). I'm not raising this to prove a point; rather I'm simply
adding some food for thought.
> In my previous post, I proved to him that it
> is not unusual for Hebrew words that begin with
> YODH or ALIF to begin with AYN in Arabic.
With regard to yod to ayn, you have not really demonstrated such, but I
see no real reason to deny that this can happen over time.
> The Arabic "Easa" is not much different from
> Aramaic/Syriac/Mandiac name Eisho/Eiso/Eishaw. And
> that is why it was never questioned by Jews and
> Christians of Arabia when Quran was revealed.
Well, we don't know what Jews or Christians from pre-Islamic Arabia
really thought, as we don't have any of their texts. We only have the
Muslim side of the story. This would be like using the TaNaKh to tell
us how the Biblical Moabites or Idumeans responded (if at all) to the
claims the Israelites made about them.
Regardless, the fact that Eesa appears in the Qur'an should in itself
be evidence that others were employing it (i.e. if we found the Qur'an
today, I believe it could serve as evidence that some Christians in
seventh century Arabia employed this name to refer to Jesus).
> I pointed out to him that this AYN is not
> pronounced in Aramaic;
Ayn was apparently not pronounced by certain speakers of Aramaic.
> the Talmud does not have it
Actually, it is vocalized in the renderings of yod-shin-vav-ayn present
in Megillah and Arakhin.
> [as according to 1911 Britannica, at that time
> Jews had started dropping consonants which were
> not pronounced];
Did this happen at the time of Jesus according to the 1911 Brittanica
passage? I missed that... I got the impression it was stating that the
guturals were dropped by the time of the Yerushalmi, but maybe I'm
wrong (and maybe this is a moot point).
> The name Easa even appears in pre-Islamic times
> among Christians living in Syria, so how can it
> be wrong?
I won't call it "wrong". However, can you tell me how "Eesa" in these
inscriptions was spelled? I'm curious, and would like to maybe read up
on these.
> Furthermore, even though Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic
> do share many letters, it is foolish
> to compare spellings.
It is certainly far from "foolish" to consider spelling.
1MAN4ALL
name was pronounced Yashua/Yashu' in his lifetime?
Yusuf B Gursey
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> AnonMoos wrote:
> > For the benefit of 1MAN4ALL and others I've just improved my
diagram
> > on the most accurate pronunciations of the name of Jesus in certain
> > Semitic languages located at
> > http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm . This
should
> > make Gursey's transcriptions of Syriac pronunciations absolutely
> > clear. Of course, if you understand neither Gursey's ASCII
> > transcriptions nor my phonetic symbol transcriptions, then silence
> > might be the better part of discretion.
> >
> > Pay special attention to the reversed-question-mark looking symbol!
>
> I can tell you that your web site and "diagrams" are a joke.
>
> Summary
>
> I have already rebutted most of these foolish assertions. The
earliest
> evidence for the vocalization of Jesus' name is in Aramaic. You have
> presented no other evidence except referring to Greek, which is
perhaps
it's not greeks living in greece who did those transcriptions, but jews
living in palestine and elsewhere who did them. so there is no reason
to belive that these are not an accurate reflection (as far as vowels
go) of actual speech, especially since they by and large agree with the
later vocaliztion of Hebrew and Aramaic.
> the worst language to transliterate Aramaic names. Aramaic spells the
> name with AYN at the end, but it is not pronounced. {This I have
this is not true, at least by and large, since aramaic or hebrew
loanwords in arabic do preserve the pharyngeals.
> verified through very reliable sources]. Jesus' name in Aramaic is
> Eisho/Eiso, which only in RECENT times is sometimes pronounced as
> Yeshua by 'some' Aramaic speaking people living in the West--mostly
> because of modern Jewish/Christian Arabic influence. And because the
you need ot verify this. christian liturgical arabic yasu:3 is of
antiquity becasue it has undergone the *sh* > s shift. so arabic
borrowed this at an early time (but at or after the first century) from
aramaic and evidently *did* pronounce 3ayn aty the time, as does
contemporary aramaic.
> AYN was not pronounced, most likely Talmud authors also omitted the
even if this were so, then arabic 3i:sa" would not have an `ayn at the
beginning either (if you claim this as the best rendition for <<Jesus>>
in 1st. cent. palestine).
> AYN, and the way they spelled it, YODH-SHIN-WOW, must have been made
> into an acronym "Yemach Shmo w'Zikro" later on. It is fairly common
> that first there is a name and then it's spelling is used as an
acronym
> for something else, not vice versa. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
> also confirms that Talmud often drops guttural sounds that were no
> longer pronounced, but it does not do so consistently.
>
> Responding to Yusuf Gursey, Anonmoos and Khinzeer:
>
> One point that all three of you have made is that letter AYN at the
> beginning of the Arabic name for Jesus (Easa) is a "problem."
However,
I didn't say it was a "problem" just that there is no evidence for such
a pronounciation for 1st cent. palestine for aramaic, or at that period
neither for hebrew or arabic.
> upon looking at my dictionary with roots of Quranic words, I was able
out of curiosity, which one?
> to find at least two words that are common to Arabic and Hebrew which
> begin with AYN even though the Hebrew equivalents do not have an AYN.
> This totally disproves your theory that somehow AYN in Easa was
unique,
> or perhaps a mistake. It seems that it is not unusual at all, and I
am
> sure there are other words like that.
I didn't say it was a "mistake" just a later development in arabic.
well, for your example I (or perhaps no one) don't know the direction
of change (or even if they are true cognates at all). but these shifts
must have taken place millenia ago.
at any rate, I did mention that teh phenomenon of " 3an3ana(t) ", i.e.
pronouncing a hamza as `ayn, does take place occasionally in arabic
(particularly Iraq and the eastern peninsula). so yes, perhaps a
dialect of aramaic with weak `ayn as the source of an arabic dialect
with
`an`ana(t) would fullfil the necessary interaction to produce 3i:sa"
from ye(:)*sh*u:3 . both conditions are fullfille din Mesopotamia (not
palestine).
>
>
> IN ARABIC: Azal [AYN-ZAA-LAM}, means: "To set aside, remove from, to
> withdraw."
>
> IN HEBREW: Azal [ALEF-ZAIN-LAMED], means: "To go away."
>
> IN SYRIAC/CHALDEE: [AYN-ZAYN-LAMADH], means "to separate, to go
away."
>
> As you can see that at least the word Azl is spelled one way in
Arabic
> and Syriac/Chaldee and the other way in Hebrew, which was not even a
> spoken language during Jesus' time. What this means is that there is
> nothing sacred about AYN and old Semitic words which were written
with
> ALIF or YODH were often written with AYN in another language.
>
> ---------------------
>
> Arabic root word: Atab [AYN-TAA-BAA] means "pleasing"
> Hebrew word: Yatab {YOD-TET-BET] which means " to be pleasing"
>
> Note that Atab has AYN but Ytab has no AYN
> ---------------------
>
> Now, in all the variations of 'Atab' in Arabic, you can find an AYN.
> Not so in Hebrew where YODH substituted for AYN.
OK. so the pronounciation with inital `ayn developed in arabic, as the
above woudl lead one to conclude form the above. but you canot use this
as evidence for galilean aramaic.
Yusuf B Gursey
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > among loanwords there is 'i:wa:n (possibly of persian origin) "a
type
> > of hall or entrance" and 'i:qu:na(t) "icon" (form greek)
>
> Actually that "'i:wa:n" is pronounced Aywaan, not Eiwan and it means
> palace or mansion. Nor sure what's the second word.
it's also pronounced 'i:wa:n
Yusuf B Gursey
AnonMoos wrote:
> 1MAN4ALL:
>
> First of all, a loanword (such as a name which was borrowed from
> language A into language B) is completely different from a cognate
> correspondence (i.e. a stem which has been inherited by both
> language A and language B from a historical ancestor language).
not always. if the loan is from earlier than the sound change found in
cognates, it will exhibit the same sound changes as cognate words. an
example is christian liturgical arabic yasu:3 , exhibiting the
change *sh* > s
>
> Cognate forms are related by rules which reflect the different sets
of
> historical sound changes which have occurred separately over the
> course of the histories of language A and language B. Loanwords are
well, scholarly loanwords, not neccesarily popular ones.
> (ideally) adapted from one language to another using the closest
> rendition of the original language A name which is possible within
the
> contemporary sounds and structures of language B.
>
> So in English "father" is the cognate correspondence of Latin
"pater",
> but when the Latin adjective "paternalis" was borrowed from Latin
into
> English, the part of the word preceding the case endings was borrowed
> by sounds as "paternal", not "fathernal".
>
> Therefore proto-Semitic correspondences between Hebrew and Arabic
> roots are basically completely irrelevant to the question of how a
> name would have been borrowed from Hebrew/Aramaic into Arabic in the
> early Christian period (thousands of years after proto-Semitic!).
well, for the newer changes, they are relevant.
>
> And furthermore, one of your attempted etymologies is completely and
> uitterly bogus -- the Hebrew root which has both the forms y-T-b and
> T-w-b is cognate with the Arabic roots T-w-b and T-y-b. The Arabic
> root `Ayn-T-b means "to perish, to be destroyed", not anything to do
> with goodness at all!!!!!!!!!! (Here "T" = Hebrew Tet and the
> corresponding Arabic letter, which has no dots.)
well, 3an3ana(t) is sporadic, or maybe in words originating in only
certain certain dialects.
>
> In short, you've done nothing to cast doubt on the general
> proto-Semitic etymological correspondence between the Hebrew `Ayin
> sound and the Arabic `Ayn sound, but even if you had, this would be
> almost completely irrelevant to the manner in which later loanwords
> from Hebrew would be adapted to Arabic structures.
perhaps not that irrelevant.
>
Yusuf B Gursey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> > In the case of both Israel and Ishmael, the yod became an alif
[with
>> a
> > kasra under it] when rendered in the Qur'an. For a longer sound (ee
>> vs.
> > i), maybe this is a point of interest. Are there any Arabic words
>> that
> > begin with a long 'ee' sound and do not begin with ayn-yaa? I don't
> > know...
>
> yes, quite a few. in rthge derived forms of verbs begining with hamza
> the combination *'i'- (hamza-kasra-hmaza) yield (acc. a phonological
> rule)
> the result 'i:- (i.e. the second hamza is dropped, this works for any
> vowel), resulting in words with 'i:-
>
also forms with *'iyC- or *'iwC become 'i:C-
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
<news:1108147698.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
>
> The bottom line is this: Can you prove without using Greek that
Jesus'
> name was pronounced Yashua/Yashu' in his lifetime?
Well, is this what we've come to? In what sense do you mean "prove"? We
can't prove, beyond all doubt, either of our conflicting positions,
irrespective of whether we make an appeal to the Greek. However, *with*
the Greek we are provided with yet another piece of evidence.
To answer your question, the texts written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac,
et cetera, that date to prior to the introduction of the marks
distinguishing vowels (Anonmoos states that this is 500 CE) leave us
unable to be certain how a name was pronounced. This Aramaic speaker
may say one thing, and another Aramaic speaker may say another, so how
do we know which one is the most likely pronunciation? You have just
asserted that "Eesho" is the real pronunciation, without providing any
real evidence. Simply noting that certain Aramaic speakers employ this
vocalization is not worth anything since various other Aramaic speakers
employ a different vocalization. If you're going to claim one predates
the other, you have to provide evidence.
Without the Greek, this becomes more difficult, as we have to take the
various later vocalized texts on faith (i.e. assume the vocalizations
provided by the niqqudot, for example, accurately depict the way the
consonantal skeleton was vocalized centuries earlier). With the Greek,
we see how the speakers of the time transliterated the name, and see
which vocalization it fits with best.
However, without the Greek transliteration of the name, I still believe
we can make an appeal to Matthew 1:21, which contains an obvious
Hebraism modeled on the name-explanations of the Hebrew Bible (exempli
gratia: the relation of "niftalti" [I have grappled/struggled] to the
name "Naftali" in Genesis 30:8). The verse only makes sense in Hebrew
(I know of no related Aramaic root), and only with a verb from the same
root as the name (yod-shin-ayn) which can mean "save". Previously I
gave the example of the verb hoshia. The text presents the verb in the
future tense (he will save), which would be the imperfect tense for
Hebrew. The third person masculine singular of hoshia is Yoshia. It
fits perfectly: [Y$V3] for he will save... [Y$V3] ki hu yoshia... I
think the obvious Hebraism lends weight to the position that the
earliest Christian community called him by a name along the lines of
Yeshua.
But can this be proven beyond all doubt? Of course not. With or without
the Greek, neither of our competing positions can be proven beyond all
doubt. We can only examine arguments and pieces of evidence, and
collectively the evidence weighs in favor of a name along the lines of
Y'shua.
Yusuf B Gursey
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Tony Cox wrote:
> > Remind me, 1MAN. What's the theological dimension in this?
> > Why are you so motivated to prove that "Jesus" is pronounced
> > a particular way?
> It's the opposite. My position is that Jesus' name must have been
> pronounced differently by different people, as there were so many
> dialects and languages spoken during Jesus' own lifetime.
you didn't respond to the "theological dimension". it would be
impossible to maintain that the Qur'an preserves (or better preserves)
the pronounciations the name of the prophets in their own lifetimes,
including that of Jesus. at any rate, the Qur'an itself does not
maintain this. it just says that it is in "clear arabic", so it
presents the names in forms that were familiar to arabs of that
particular place and time.
as for the rest of the passage, well, it could goes without saying,
"anything is possible". it is possible, however unlikely, that say,
Jesus had a chinese nanny and had a chinese accent, thus pronouncing
his name with a chinese accent. the trouble with that is that there is
absolutely no evidence with that and one has to stick to the available
evidence. so for Jesus calling himself 3i:sa" .
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
<news:1108147698.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
>
> The bottom line is this: Can you prove without using Greek that
Jesus'
> name was pronounced Yashua/Yashu' in his lifetime?
Well, is this what we've come to? In what sense do you mean "prove"? We
Yusuf B Gursey
without recourse to greek transcriptions by 1st millenium jews, which
we have no reason to reject, the consonantal skeleton remains /y*sh*w3/
(I'm talking about 1st cent. CE palestine) so a recosntruction along
the lines of *ye(:)*sh*u:3 is still reasonable. it still remains
somethjing closer to this than to 3i:sa"
Yusuf B Gursey
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> I would now say that it is no more wrong than Eesho, or even Jesus.
>
> Interestingly enough, Enno Littman, in an article titled "Jesus in a
> Pre-Islamic Arabic Inscription," from the journal 'Muslim World,'
> (1950, vol. xi), writes of a Thamudic inscription that spells Jesus'
> name yaa-sheen-ayn-yaa [p.16] and later claims that yaa-shin-ayn is
> "the ancient Arabic name of Jesus" [p. 18]. This inscription is
marked
> Harding No. 476, and is claimed to be "the oldest native document of
> Christianity of Northern Arabia known so far" [p. 18]. Of course, I'm
> ignorant of Thamudic, but wonder how one could distinguish a sheen
from
> a seen in any pre-Islamic Arabic text (or is this possible in
southarabian script arabic (i.e. incl. thamudic) uses southarabian
*sh*i:n (what corresponds to hebrew shin) to write (later) arabic si:n
and southarabian s^i:n (a lateral) for arabic *sh*i:n . it's a little
confusing since orientalists at first used the standard arabic values
fo rthese letters then decided that modern southarabian is a better
model. also there is still debate about when in arabic the sound
change *sh* > s occured.
> Thamudic?). I'm not raising this to prove a point; rather I'm simply
> adding some food for thought.
>
at any rate, this would be the ancestor of christian liturgical arabic
yasu:3 . 3i:sa" would be a later less scholarly development.
> > In my previous post, I proved to him that it
> > is not unusual for Hebrew words that begin with
> > YODH or ALIF to begin with AYN in Arabic.
>
> With regard to yod to ayn, you have not really demonstrated such, but
I
> see no real reason to deny that this can happen over time.
>
> > The Arabic "Easa" is not much different from
> > Aramaic/Syriac/Mandiac name Eisho/Eiso/Eishaw. And
> > that is why it was never questioned by Jews and
> > Christians of Arabia when Quran was revealed.
>
> Well, we don't know what Jews or Christians from pre-Islamic Arabia
> really thought, as we don't have any of their texts. We only have the
> Muslim side of the story. This would be like using the TaNaKh to tell
> us how the Biblical Moabites or Idumeans responded (if at all) to the
> claims the Israelites made about them.
the unorthodox beliefs attributed to christians in teh Qur'an may have
been their actual, since they correspond to those known to be of the
Elchasites. see Francois de Blois in an article of his in "Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies" 65 (2002).
unfortunately Mingana does not give the reproduction of the original
inscription.
1MAN4ALL
SOME QUESTIONS:
1. What we are discussing here is PRONUNCIATION, not just consonants.
As I keep pointing out, one of the consonants (AYN) was not pronounced
or mispronounced. That was the case back then and it is still the case
today in Aramaic. Furthermore, YODH was/is pronounced with an EE sound.
So these consonants may look good on paper, but they didn't mean a
thing when it comes to pronunciation. IGNORING GREEK, WHAT PROOF DO YOU
HAVE THAT IN ARAMAIC THE PRONUNCUATION OF JESUS' NAME CHANGED FROM ESHO
TO YASHUA?
[And please don't snip my paragraphs or cut sentences in the middle].
2. What document written in Aramaic from 1st First Century CE are you
referring to which would lead you to believe that YODH-SHIN-WOW-AYN was
pronounced Yeshu and not Eisho as it is pronounced today?
3. Do you agree or disagree with 1911 Britannica that in Talmudic
period some consonants were dropped because they were not pronounced,
though it was not done consistently? WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT WASN'T
THE CASE EARLIER?
1MAN4ALL
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> you didn't respond to the "theological dimension". it would be
> impossible to maintain that the Qur'an preserves (or better
preserves)
> the pronounciations the name of the prophets in their own lifetimes,
> including that of Jesus. at any rate, the Qur'an itself does not
> maintain this. it just says that it is in "clear arabic", so it
> presents the names in forms that were familiar to arabs of that
> particular place and time.
I never stated--nor has any serious Muslim scholar-that names of
prophets used in the Quran are the 'exact' names. In fact, Islamic
history books often provide information on Hebrew names of these
prophets. That information and bit of history not found in the Quran
came from Jews who converted to Islam, notwithstanding the fact that
many 'ulema' discouraged Muslims from putting too much trust in these
legends.
> as for the rest of the passage, well, it could goes without saying,
> "anything is possible". it is possible, however unlikely, that say,
> Jesus had a chinese nanny and had a chinese accent, thus pronouncing
> his name with a chinese accent. the trouble with that is that there
is
> absolutely no evidence with that and one has to stick to the
available
> evidence. so for Jesus calling himself 3i:sa" .
We do know the languages that were spoken during Jesus' time. Chinese
wasn't one of them, so your point is irrelevant.
Question:
1. Do you agree or disagree that dialects of Aramaic were very similar
and differed only in idiomatic expressions and orthography?
AnonMoos
>Tony Cox wrote:
>> Remind me, 1MAN. What's the theological dimension in this? Why are
>> you so motivated to prove that "Jesus" is pronounced a particular
>> way?
The background to this is that several times in the past when certain
exaggerated claims were posted to this group -- to the effect that
since Muslims venerate Jesus at some level, therefore there is
supposedly some deep connection or broad compatibility between
Christianity and Islam -- then I replied by pointing out various facts
leading to the conclusion that the Jesus of the Qur'an is very
different from the Jesus of the New Testament, and that the Jesus of
the Qur'an is incompatible with Christian theology. And the main
relevant point was that Muhammad actually claimed to know more than
Jesus than Christians themselves know -- even though there are several
factors which would seem to disprove this, including the fact that the
original form of the name of Jesus had a voiced pharyngeal `Ayn
consonant at the END, whereas the name of Jesus used in the Qur'an
(`Isa) has the Ayn consonant at the BEGINNING of the name.
I've never said that there's anything inherently "wrong" or "evil"
about Muslims calling Jesus by the name `Isa (`Ayn-Ya-Sin-Ya) -- just
that the appearance of the name of Jesus under the form `Isa in the
Qur'an is one of several things which calls into doubt the Muslim
claim that Muhammad knew even more about Jesus than Christians
themselves do.
Since 1MAN4ALL takes it as an unquestionable axiom that Islam is an
absolutely perfect religion in every single respect (and that Muhammad
was as perfect as it is possible for a human to be), therefore
1MAN4ALL is _a priori_ unable to accept that the original form of the
name of Jesus had the `Ayn consonant at the end (not at the
beginning), so that 1MAN4ALL has been searching around for anything
which he thinks might be used to support his preconceived _a priori_
position. Unfortunately, 1MAN4ALL lacks much of the necessary
background, so that the results of his collage work of selective
cut-and-pasting from random internet sources are not very happy.
1MAN4ALL has come to grips with the spoken Arabic dialects of several
Arab countries in a rough-and-ready way, but he isn't all that strong
in the grammar of classical/Qur'anic Arabic, and he has almost no
knowledge of linguistics, comparative Semitic, Hebrew, or Aramaic.
> My position is that Jesus' name must have been pronounced
> differently by different people, as there were so many dialects and
> languages spoken during Jesus' own lifetime.
No doubt there were, but it doesn't change the following two facts:
1) The ensemble of all the available evidence points to a
reconstruction of the pronunciation of the name of Jesus among
1st. century. A.D. Palestinian Jews as Yeshu` with `Ayn at the end of
the name.
2) There is no evidence for any version of the name of Jesus with
the `Ayn consonant at the beginning of the name until several
centuries after Jesus' lifetime, in an area (Arabia) in which Jesus
didn't live.
> It's Mr. Anonmoos who is convinced that the ONLY way Jesus' name
> could have been written or pronounced is Yashu'.
It's Yeshu` (with `Ayn at the end). There were no doubt many slight
minor pronunciation variants whose existence cannot be reconstructed
using the evidence now available, but the core pronunciation must have
been something quite similar to Yeshu`. And in fact, the spelling
Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin is about the only spelling ever used in Hebrew and
Aramaic, from the time when the book of Ezra-Nehemiah was first put in
writing (at least 300 years before Jesus' birth), down to the most
modern Syriac liturgy printed yesterday with the ink still drying.
(Of course, I ignore deliberately-altered spellings -- or rather
mis-spellings -- which were consciously intended to be insulting.)
> His theory is based on the following: Greek has translated the name
> Yahushua
Nonsense -- it's Yehoshu` or Yehoshua`!
Only the "Jesus-Tetragrammaton" crackpot cultists use forms such as
"Yahushua"[sic] for the original Hebrew form of the name of Joshua.
Why are you continually citing forms which betray the influence of
these "Jesus-Tetragrammaton" crackpot kooks??? It only goes further
to prove my point that your style of argument is heavily-dependent on
uncritically cutting-and-pasting from dubious websites.
> because of the limitation of the Greek language in conveying
> Hebrew/Aramaic names,
Ancient Greek doesn't do a very good job of transcribing the
consonants of Hebrew/Aramaic words, but in this case we already HAVE
the consonants from the contemporary Semitic consonantal orthography
(Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin). On the other hand, Greek does a fairly good job
in writing Hebrew/Aramaic vowels -- in Greek IESOUS, the Eta in the
first syllable and the Omicron-Ypsilon in the second syllable provide
concrete information about the vowels of the name Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin
which is much closer in time and space to 1st century A.D. Judea than
the information contained in Syriac vowel diacritics can ever be.
> some modern Aramaic speakers now call Jesus Yeshua. The answer is
> that these Aramaic speakers have been influenced by Jewish/Christian
> Arabs who have bought the "Greek-is-right" argument. Historically,
> the Aramaic name of Jesus was/is Eisho, as any Aramaic scholar would
> tell you.
I quite seriously doubt it, Mannie -- Isho` is the Eastern Syriac
(Nestorian) form, while Yeshu` is the Western Syriac (Jacobite) form.
You're really rather deluded if you think that Isho` represents a form
close to that of the name of Jesus in 1st. century A.D. Judean or
Galilean WESTERN Aramaic.
Why not take a look at the uppper right corner of the revised version
of the http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm diagram
which you profess to despise and loathe so much -- this poses a pretty
little problem in historical linguistic reconstruction. Start with
the three language forms Yeshua` (Tiberian Hebrew), Isho` (Eastern
Syriac), and Yeshu` (Western Syriac), then try to reconstruct
backwards the common earlier ancestral form which gave rise to all
these three later forms. If you have any sensitivity to this kind of
linguistic work, then even without knowing about the earlier Biblical
spelling or the Greek transcription, you would not not choose Isho` as
the most probable ancestral proto-form.
In any case, Isho` would have very probably been transcribed into
Greek as Ison (Iota-Sigma-Omega-Nun) -- not Iesous at all!
> Mr. Anonmoos' second theory was that Jesus' Arabic name Easa is
> "wrong" because it starts with letter AYN. In my previous post, I
> proved to him that it is not unusual for Hebrew words that begin
> with YODH or ALIF to begin with AYN in Arabic.
No you didn't -- you tried to manipulate root correspondences, which
has almost nothing to do with patterns of loanword adaptation, as I
discussed in my previous post URL:<news:420C518D...@io.com> .
In any case, root Yod-Tet-Beit or Tet-Waw-Beit in Hebrew corresponds
to T-y-b or T-w-b in Arabic, with no `Ayn anywhere.
> the Talmud does not have it this AYN
Please read Giron's posting again where he spells it out at great
length that the Talmud omits the `Ayin from Jesus of Nazareth's name
ONLY (as an intentional deliberate distortion), but keeps the `Ayin
when referring to all other individuals with the name
Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin. This hardly has anything to do with the ordinary
pronounciation of `Ayin!
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
<news:1108166942.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
>
> 1. What we are discussing here is PRONUNCIATION,
> not just consonants. As I keep pointing out, one
> of the consonants (AYN) was not pronounced
> or mispronounced. That was the case back then and
> it is still the case today in Aramaic.
Certain forms of Aramaic anyway...
> Furthermore, YODH was/is pronounced with an
> EE sound. So these consonants may look good
> on paper, but they didn't mean a thing when
> it comes to pronunciation.
You're starting to get a bit ahead of yourself. It seems clear that in
Eastern Syriac, a yod at the beginning of a word can take the "ee"
sound (this is not the case with Hebrew, where yod with a hireyq would
simply take the sound yi, like in Yisrael). That, and various other
factors, make the evolution from Y'shua to Eesa quite possible over
time. Of course, the existence of Eesa is probably evidence in itself
of that...
> IGNORING GREEK, WHAT PROOF DO YOU
> HAVE THAT IN ARAMAIC THE PRONUNCUATION OF
> JESUS' NAME CHANGED FROM ESHO
> TO YASHUA?
There is no evidence that the name changed from Eesho to Y'shua, as
Y'shua seems to clearly predate the Eastern Syriac vocalization Eesho.
And why are we going to ignore Greek? For the sake of argument?
> What document written in Aramaic from 1st First
> Century CE are you referring to which would
> lead you to believe that YODH-SHIN-WOW-AYN was
> pronounced Yeshu and not Eisho as it is pronounced
> today?
None, as documents from the first century pre-date the voweling system.
So too, there is no document from the first century that ffers the
vocalization Eesho. They all simply present a consonantal skeleton.
AnonMoos
>1MAN4ALL wrote:
>> Responding to Yusuf Gursey, Anonmoos and Khinzeer: One point that
>> all three of you have made is that letter AYN at the beginning of
>> the Arabic name for Jesus (Easa) is a "problem."
> However, I didn't say it was a "problem" just that there is no
> evidence for such a pronounciation for 1st cent. palestine for
> aramaic, or at that period neither for hebrew or arabic. I didn't
> say it was a "mistake" just a later development in arabic.
> at any rate, I did mention that teh phenomenon of " 3an3ana(t) ",
> i.e. pronouncing a hamza as `ayn, does take place occasionally in
> arabic (particularly Iraq and the eastern peninsula). so yes,
> perhaps a dialect of aramaic with weak `ayn as the source of an
> arabic dialect with `an`ana(t) would fullfil the necessary
> interaction to produce 3i:sa" from ye(:)*sh*u:3 .
But it's awfully coincidental that one `Ayn disappears at the end, and
then later -- by apparent pure accident -- another `Ayn is
spontaneously added at the beginning. It seems to me that a sporadic
deformation (which would not be completely different from Zawj -> Joz,
but should not really be called "metathesis" according to any very
valid definition of the word) is still the most likely explanation.
> both conditions are fullfilled in Mesopotamia (not palestine).
Most things having to do with the development or genesis of the Arabic
form `Isa seem to find their home in Mesopotamia more than Palestine.
1MAN4ALL
AnonMoos wrote:
> "Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> >1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> >> Responding to Yusuf Gursey, Anonmoos and Khinzeer: One point that
> >> all three of you have made is that letter AYN at the beginning of
> >> the Arabic name for Jesus (Easa) is a "problem."
>
> > However, I didn't say it was a "problem" just that there is no
> > evidence for such a pronounciation for 1st cent. palestine for
> > aramaic, or at that period neither for hebrew or arabic. I didn't
> > say it was a "mistake" just a later development in arabic.
>
> > at any rate, I did mention that teh phenomenon of " 3an3ana(t) ",
> > i.e. pronouncing a hamza as `ayn, does take place occasionally in
> > arabic (particularly Iraq and the eastern peninsula). so yes,
> > perhaps a dialect of aramaic with weak `ayn as the source of an
> > arabic dialect with `an`ana(t) would fullfil the necessary
> > interaction to produce 3i:sa" from ye(:)*sh*u:3 .
>
> But it's awfully coincidental that one `Ayn disappears at the end,
and
> then later -- by apparent pure accident -- another `Ayn is
> spontaneously added at the beginning. It seems to me that a sporadic
> deformation (which would not be completely different from Zawj ->
Joz,
> but should not really be called "metathesis" according to any very
> valid definition of the word) is still the most likely explanation.
Think about the two examples that I had given, which even Gursey has
now Okayed, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that AYN was used for
words in Arabic which begin with ALIF or YODH in Hebrew. He calls it a
later development in Arabic but as both these cognates (with their
variations) appear in Quran, they must have existed in Arabic from the
very beginning, which should lead you to the obvious conclusion that
Arabic consonants are not always the same as in Hebrew or Aramaic. In
other words, Hebrew and Arabic are 'different' languages even though
they do often share similar root words and belong to the same
linguistic family. [Keep also in mind that Hebrew and Arabic are both
Semitic languages but one is not older than the other. So the shift in
consonants may have taken place thousands of years ago]. Your argument
that AYN at the beginning of Easa was a "mistake" or an "accident" can
now be easily dismissed, rejected, WHATEVER. And we now have to move on
to Galilean Aramaic and find (non-Greek) manuscripts from the 1st
Century that exemplify that dialect and provide hints on
pronunciation;-)
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
>
> Think about the two examples that I had given, which even
> Gursey has now Okayed, proving beyond a shadow of a
> doubt, that AYN was used for words in Arabic which begin
> with ALIF or YODH in Hebrew.
Gursey seemed to okay it for the sake of argument, to get to the point
that yes, such evolution can happen within Arabic. Or did I
misunderstand?
As for the switch of alif and ayin, apparently this happens even within
Aramaic or Hebrew, though on rare occasions. With regard to yod and
ayn, it seems clear that ultimately, it is possible for yod to turn to
ayn over a process of evolution (a la Y'shua to Eesa), but you did not
demonstrate an example of the switch from yod to ayn as far as I could
see (i.e. your example was incorrect).
1MAN4ALL
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> <news:1108187977....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
> >
> > Think about the two examples that I had given, which even
> > Gursey has now Okayed, proving beyond a shadow of a
> > doubt, that AYN was used for words in Arabic which begin
> > with ALIF or YODH in Hebrew.
>
> Gursey seemed to okay it for the sake of argument, to get to the
point
> that yes, such evolution can happen within Arabic. Or did I
> misunderstand?
Where is the evidence that Arabic borrowed the word "Azal" from Hebrew,
or do you have this bigoted view that any cognate word that is found in
Arabic is derived from Hebrew? Arabic is as old as Hebrew, if nor
older, and has done a better job of preserving old Semitic root words.
And that is why when Hebrew was resurrected only two hundred years ago,
Jews had no option but to use Arabic as a guide. So if there was any
evolution, it must have been in Hebrew. All of you have already agreed
that Yehushua evolved into Yeshua and even that evolved into Yeshu
(without the AYN). It would be hard to find that kind of fast evolution
in Arabic.
> As for the switch of alif and ayin, apparently this happens even
within
> Aramaic or Hebrew, though on rare occasions. With regard to yod and
> ayn, it seems clear that ultimately, it is possible for yod to turn
to
> ayn over a process of evolution (a la Y'shua to Eesa),
There is no evidence of an evolution. Arabic spellings are often
different and your cockamamie theory that Arabic must have the same
consonants as Hebrew, if they are nor "borrowed" or "evolved", has to
be laid to rest.
> but you did not
> demonstrate an example of the switch from yod to ayn as far as I
could
> see (i.e. your example was incorrect).
I did. Yatab and Atab are cognates. How is it incorrect?
gaby
:-)
"AnonMoos" wrote to 1Man4All:...
>> I can tell you that your web site and "diagrams" are a joke.
> The true "joke" is your stupid idiotic attempts at
> transcriptions of
> the sounds of any language which is not written with the Latin
> alphabet -- meaningless nonsensical gibberish such as "Eishoa"
> and
> "ARAAFAATH", which ignominiously fails to even rise to the
> level of a
> rough-and-ready yet serviceable Berlitz phrase-book
> transcription.
>
> It's hard to even engage in any meaningful discussion with
> you, when
> you conspicuously fail to understand the simplest and most
> basic
> principles of accurate phonetic/phonemic transcription -- or
> more
> precisely, why such accurate transcriptions are needed for
> linguistic
> purposes in the first place.
>
> You can take a "Linguistics 101" course at your local
> university if
> you have any honest desire to remedy your more glaring
> deficiencies in
> this area -- but in the meantime, since you have zilch
> knowledge of
> Linguistics, Hebrew, or Aramaic beyond what you cut-and-paste
> from
> random web-pages you stumble across in Google searches, you
> would save
> yourself future embarassment if you didn't continue to
> patronizingly
> condescendly smarm your rehashed third-hand Wikipedia nonsense
> onto
> those of us who have some direct knowledge of these topics as
> a result
> of first-hand study.
>
> Whether http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm
> represents the ultimate truth or not, it has one immense
> advantage
> over everything that you've written -- it uses CLEAR ACCURATE
> PHONETIC
> TRANSCRIPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! You would be well-advised to take
> it for
> your model, in which case we wouldn't have any more of this
> "Eeshoa"
> nonsense (good riddance! -- a consummation devoutly to be
> wished).
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
>
> Where is the evidence that Arabic borrowed the
> word "Azal" from Hebrew
When did I claim that 'Arabic borrowed "Azal" from Hebrew'? Had you
paid attention to my post responding to your post listing the two
examples, I conceded on the first one, as as far as I could see, the
two were related. With regard to Gursey, I was simply noting that he
seemed to just agree for the sake of argument with the claim overall.
I'm sure he could have called into question your second example.
> or do you have this bigoted view that any
> cognate word that is found in Arabic is
> derived from Hebrew?
No, but you once again show your bigotry, interpreting every statement
in light of your subtle, and not-so-subtle, conspiracy theories about
those who voice disagreement with you secretly having blanket sympathy
for everything Jewish and Zionist.
> Arabic is as old as Hebrew, if nor
> older,
I'm guessing older.
> and has done a better job of preserving old
> Semitic root words.
I agree. Anyone who looks at more advanced texts on Hebrew often sees
recourse to Arabic to glean a better understanding of the root. I've
said this before on various parts of the net. Now that I've said this,
how do you reconcile it with your conspiracy theory about me being on
the payroll of Israeli propagandists?
> > it is possible for yod to turn to
> > ayn over a process of evolution
> > (a la Y'shua to Eesa),
>
> There is no evidence of an evolution.
Huh? Do you mean from Y'shua to Eesa? The pronunciation *AND* spelling
is different, and the former seems to obviously predate the latter.
Hence, evolution.
> > but you did not demonstrate an example of
> > the switch from yod to ayn as far as I
> > could see (i.e. your example was incorrect).
>
> I did. Yatab and Atab are cognates. How is it
> incorrect?
This was already covered in the following response to your post calling
yatab to witness:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/63a47e28b215ac6b
I can't find any Hebrew-to-Arabic dictionaries that connect the two in
meaning, and no Arabic dictionary I have consulted gives the meaning
you gave for 'ataba or 'aTaba.
Of course, this is all a moot point. The original discussion (which you
have long since obfuscated) was with regard to the proper pronunciation
of Jesus' name. The important points of discussion revolve around what
our actual arguments are (unless, that is, you've decided to abandon
that discussion). So the following post is probably the best place to
continue from:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/7d05bf9cd95567a2
Yusuf B Gursey
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> <news:1108224691.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
> >
> > Where is the evidence that Arabic borrowed the
> > word "Azal" from Hebrew
>
> When did I claim that 'Arabic borrowed "Azal" from Hebrew'? Had you
> paid attention to my post responding to your post listing the two
> examples, I conceded on the first one, as as far as I could see, the
> two were related. With regard to Gursey, I was simply noting that he
> seemed to just agree for the sake of argument with the claim overall.
> I'm sure he could have called into question your second example.
yes. there is a reference that agrees that the wwords are relatted for
the first. I also added that I don't know the direction of the sound
change.
the others are not listed as cognates, nor did I expect them to be.
the main point was that the change ' > 3 is rather known for arabic of
the historical period, and there are mdoern examples as well.
>
> > or do you have this bigoted view that any
> > cognate word that is found in Arabic is
> > derived from Hebrew?
>
> No, but you once again show your bigotry, interpreting every
statement
> in light of your subtle, and not-so-subtle, conspiracy theories about
> those who voice disagreement with you secretly having blanket
sympathy
> for everything Jewish and Zionist.
>
> > Arabic is as old as Hebrew, if nor
> > older,
>
> I'm guessing older.
on the whole (though not neccessarily in every feature) classical
arabic is more conservative than Hebrew, though the earliest
attestations of Old Canaanite are older.
>
> > and has done a better job of preserving old
> > Semitic root words.
>
> I agree. Anyone who looks at more advanced texts on Hebrew often sees
> recourse to Arabic to glean a better understanding of the root. I've
because of the vast amount of material available for study from
classical arabic.