Posted on 06/24/2018 3:07:00 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
But I'm no scholar.
Can you cite a source?
The actual history of English bibles is a bit more nuanced than you think. There were numerous partial English translations long before the reformation (which suggest that the Church didn't object to the idea of scripture in English per se).
Moreover, each of the protestant English translations also included various marginalia criticizing the authority of Rome, for example by calling the Pope "the Antichrist" (Geneva Bible). That the Church hierarchy reacted negatively to this is no more surprising that King James himself's condemnation when the same bible criticized the divine right of kings, declaring it “very partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits.”
We'd probably agree that the reaction of authority to criticism in the 16th and 17th Centuries was not pretty and often unjust, but that's a very different story from the simple claim that the Church objected to the very idea of translating the Bible into English.
For some reason, whoever or however the alphabet selected to represent the sounds English people now use was emergent, the letter "J" was assigned to the sound which is, in other letters of the English, pronounced as "dzhay"; then "Jerusalem" could be lo sounded like "dzheh-roos-sah-lehm."
But Strong's Concordance Dictionary of Hebrew words says (using English alphabet sounds) that it is "yer-oo-shaw-lah'-im," or "yer-oo-shaw-lah'-yim"; but in Aramaic it sounded as "yer-oo-shaw-lame' (the apostraphes representing the accent)." Aramaic (Daniel chapters 2 thru 9, written for and dealing with Gentiles) was a little different than the Hebrew sounding.
Goin into the New Tstament, when this was transliterated into Greek, it sounds like "hee-er-os-ol'-oo-mah," in Greek letters being spelled as a proper noun "Ἱεροσόλυμα" with the I infected with the apotrophe as the "rough breathing" aspiration, making what would be in our lanuage the "h" sound, which is simply an aspirant sound beginning a word.
But none of these used the "dzh" sound that the Engs have decided the way they are going to pronounce the word, whether this is acceptable to Jews, Aramites, and Greeks--or not.
For what it's worth.
Hey Doc, if this school of thought is correct about Hebrew being a largely written language that does not preclude it from being spoken especially when using classical phrases as we do with Latin.
I wonder what language the Demonic used when he/they cried out to Jesus.
There was not a Palestine in the time of Jesus. In fact, Judea and Samaria were part of the Syrian Province of Rome. The first time it was officially called Palestine was when The Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed it Palestina Syriana, in order to erase Judea (and Israel) after he suppressed the Bar Kochba Rebellion in 132 CE. Hadrian adapted the name from the Assyrians. The Greek Philosopher Herodotus referred to the area between Phonecia (Lebanon) and Egypt as the Syrian Province of Palaistine in the 5th Century BCE. The term Palestine was translated from the Greco-roman word pleshet, which would roughly translate to wanderer or migratory. There has never been a nation of Palestine, or a Palestinian city, but throughout history was referred to as an area of migration. This where the Phoenicians dumped their goods and then were transported to the east. Israel has always been a crossroads to the east. That is why every major Empire sought to control it. For the Palestinians to claim it as their ‘country’ is like if someone claimed Interstate 10 in the US as their ‘country’ because they drove on it.
You mean your gardener Hay-soose.
;^)
Not ‘dead’....
Just waiting in the form of THE Lion from the Tribe of Judah.
Do you not believe the books of the Maccabees?
As Paul clearly said, the oracles of Yehova are only given to Judah.
The MS that have been found in the Vatican demonstrate that the Greek translations are but crude representations of what was given by and to the apostles.
The word has been preserved for this time!
Can you imagine a better source than the chief editor for the Dead Sea Scrolls? Nehemia has found an abundant wealth of NT ms in the original Hebrew, and they are discussed in Rood's “Lost Treasures in the Vatican” series. (michaelrood.tv)
.
As far as the word of Yehova goes, it is the only language that is alive.
.
Not ‘waiting’ either!
In continuous use by Litvac Rabbis since the sacking of Jerusalem.
Vulgate = Vulgar = Common.
Sorry, it wasn't. Loo it up in any Hebrew or Greek lexicon, or int the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries in the back of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Version. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew is "yeh-ho-shoo'-ah" or "yeh-ho-shoo'-ah" and likely the same in Aramaic. But in Greek it is "ee-ay-sooce'" of which Strong says:
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua pronounced ), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.where thew J issounded as it would be in German, with "J" sounding like "ee" as in the German word "Jah" which sounds to us in our alphabet "eeah" which we would spell as "Yah."
This is a professional article, and one on language, so I make free:
It is not, “The second, and most... “ but “The second, and more...”
The author previously established that there are but two reasons from which to choose.
Jesus’s name (which is Greek), would be translated Joshua
(which would be Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent). Heb 4:8 and
Acts 7:45 show that when the translators came to the name
of Joshua from the O.T. they used the translation Jesus.
But I wasn't speaking about those times. I was speaking about Jesus' time (1st century AD), at which time Hebrew was --- as far as I know --- not the common vernacular anyplace but in Jerusalem, and in particular was used as the liturgical or hieratic language: the language of Scripture and Temple worship.
According to the website My Jewish Learning, "Jewish Aramaic was the vernacular of Jews in the Land of Israel in the first century."
There were many Jews who spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek
.
Hebrew was the language in which the NT writings were originally produced, because it was the only language that the cohenim used.
It was the language of Matthew, the first NT author, and of Paul, the most prolific author.
That is not correct. In Aramaic it sounds like what we would spell with our alphabet "Yehoshua"; but transliterated from Hebrew/Aramaic into Koine Greek it would sound like what we would spell with our English alphabet as "yaysooce," but only in the nominative case. It would sound different depending how its ending is inflected to show that it is in another case as grammatically used. That may also be true in the Hebrew/Aramaic, but I have no information in hand as to that aspect.
Check out the verse Hebrews 4:8 as to what the word is, and how the Greek is translated in the KJV as compared to a modern version like, say, the NKJV:
"ει γαρ αυτους ιησους κατεπαυσεν ουκ αν περι αλλης ελαλει μετα ταυτα ημερας" (Textus Receptus)
"For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." (KJV)
"For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. (NKJV)
"For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that." (NASB)
(My underlining in the above for word comparison)
It can get a little confusing for those who are not well-acquainted with the ancient languages.
With respect,
imardmd1
Prove it. That is, without using Roodian (il)logic.
.
Aramaic was never the language of any hebrews at any time.
It was a language used by Jews in commerce with Aramaic speakers, but nothing in Aramaic has ever surfaced in the “City of David” area digs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.