ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby Jason Hare » March 19th, 2012, 5:49 am

RandallButh wrote:Anyway, why is Yehoshua/Yeshua` called an Aramaic name? the Aramaic would have been y.th.w.`.
(When you come up with the answer, you can apply the same analogy to Golgotha and you will find John's Gospel correct in calling Golgotha Hebrew. Actually, John was more correct because golgolet actually meant skull in Hebrew, while y.sh.`. never really penetrated into Aramaic as a loan verb.)
And then muse over the fact that the Judean Aramaic NT lectionaries (aka ChristianPalestinianAramaic) use Y.s.w.s. rather than Y.sh.w.` for the name Yeshua`.


But, of course, ἑβραϊστί can render both "in Hebrew" and "in Aramaic." To what extent did first-Century Greek speakers differentiate between the Aramaic spoken in the streets of most of Palestine and the Hebrew read in the houses of study?
Jason A. Hare
Rehovot, Israel
Jason Hare
 
Posts: 378
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Rehovot, Israel

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby Jason Hare » March 19th, 2012, 5:52 am

RandallButh wrote:yehoshia` is a normal verb where the 'he' hasn't dropped out.


Still looks odd. Do you know how often it happens that the heh of the binyan doesn't drop out before the yod of the imperfect? I mean, we would certainly expect יוֹשִׁיעַ rather than יְהוֹשִׁיעַ for the hiphil imperfect.
Jason A. Hare
Rehovot, Israel
Jason Hare
 
Posts: 378
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Rehovot, Israel

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby Jason Hare » March 19th, 2012, 5:54 am

RandallButh wrote:Evidence? The Hebrew language.
The Yeho- part of names is a prefix, like yehoshafat, where shafat is the word/root.
yehoyaqim, where yaqim is a word.
While Yehoshua` has the root shua` (with `ayin) cf. Gen 38.2, 12.

hoshea` on the other hand is a hif`il formation and the 'o' is from the root. y.sh.`.
like hosha`-ya Jer 42.1 (the suffix 'ya' refers to the Lord),
originally the root was *w.sh.`.in the history of western semitic languages.
cf. hodaw-ya,hodiy-ya from y.d.y. originally *w.d.w/y.
hotir 1Chr25.4 y.t.r., *w.t.r.


I don't think I've ever seen from anyone else that יְהוֹשֻׁעַ comes from the root שׁ.ו.ע, but I'm willing to consider it. You're building an analogy to the other יְהוֹ־ prefixed names. Are there any such names that do not follow the pattern, though? You may be on to something.

εὐχαριστῶ.
Jason A. Hare
Rehovot, Israel
Jason Hare
 
Posts: 378
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Rehovot, Israel

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby RandallButh » March 19th, 2012, 6:52 am

Jason Hare: I don't think I've ever seen from anyone else that יְהוֹשֻׁעַ comes from the root שׁ.ו.ע, but I'm willing to consider it. You're building an analogy to the other יְהוֹ־ prefixed names. Are there any such names that do not follow the pattern, though? You may be on to something.


The reason is that in popular etymology it fits yeshou`ah 'salvation'. I thnk that BDB already hinted at the correct etymology by including "or, Y. is opulence."

But, of course, ἑβραϊστί can render both "in Hebrew" and "in Aramaic." To what extent did first-Century Greek speakers differentiate between the Aramaic spoken in the streets of most of Palestine and the Hebrew read in the houses of study?


I might as well correct something from the beginning of the thread. There is no "of course" about ἑβραϊστί meaning 'in Aramaic.' It meant 'in Hebrew' in Greek. Greeks never unambiguously referred to Aramaic with ἑβραϊστί and by forms ἑβραΐς, ἑβραϊκή. For Aramaic they have συριστί. Josephus, LXX Pseudepigrapha, were always distinct, they never use Hebrew for Aramaic, unless one goes back and rereads the ambiguous contexts based on presupposition and Greek citation forms. The only author that could have been justified with this was John, where he refers to three names as used within Hebrew. The etymology of the names turns out to be surprising, because John doesn't say what the first two meant. A 49 page paper on this will come out in a Brill volume at SBL 2012, so take BDAG's entry with a lump of salt.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 532
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby Ken M. Penner » March 19th, 2012, 9:02 am

RandallButh wrote:I might as well correct something from the beginning of the thread. There is no "of course" about ἑβραϊστί meaning 'in Aramaic.' It meant 'in Hebrew' in Greek. Greeks never unambiguously referred to Aramaic with ἑβραϊστί and by forms ἑβραΐς, ἑβραϊκή. For Aramaic they have συριστί. Josephus, LXX Pseudepigrapha, were always distinct, they never use Hebrew for Aramaic, unless one goes back and rereads the ambiguous contexts based on presupposition and Greek citation forms. The only author that could have been justified with this was John, where he refers to three names as used within Hebrew. The etymology of the names turns out to be surprising, because John doesn't say what the first two meant. A 49 page paper on this will come out in a Brill volume at SBL 2012, so take BDAG's entry with a lump of salt.

Those who want to see an overview of the evidence and reasoning of this position (or at least my take on it) may read my 2002 Canadian Society of Biblical Studies talk (10 years old now!) at http://stfx.academia.edu/KenPenner/Talk ... nd_Aramaic reworked for the Society of Biblical Literature 2004, with handout at http://stfx.academia.edu/KenPenner/Talk ... l_Revision
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 612
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Previous

Return to Pragmatics and Discourse

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron