Aramaic Idiom Research Articles

A searchlight on daily bread (Matthew 6:11)

Translations of Matt. 6:11 presuppose, erroneously, that the prayer was for material bread. The distinction between literal and metaphorical bread prevents this petition from being banal, out of keeping with the remainder of the prayer. Biblical texts which restore the true meaning include Deut. 8:3 and Isa. 55:1-4. Current Jewish imagery identified lehem/artos as (1) the Law and so (2) a fine comestible. John 6:32-54 relies on this. The basic idea having been recovered, the problem of epiousios remains. Aramaic idiom lies behind it, unintelligible to non-Jews. One thinks of mêmra’ which means both the Word and its Author. A paraphrase, not a translation is called for. Metaphorical ‘bread’ would ensure life, membership of the Kingdom and obedience to the Will. Could a Greek neologism manage this? Epiousios could have meant ‘essential’.

On the alleged Aramaic idiom behind the synoptic HLQON-sayings

On the alleged Aramaic idiom behind the synoptic HLQON-sayings

Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd

Aramaic was a relatively stable language for centuries before and after the time of Jesus. This stable situation has been clarified by the Dead Sea scrolls. The Aramaic scrolls can safely be used to reconstruct sayings of Jesus. However, they do not form a whole language, and there was no firm barrier between the Aramaic of the time of Jesus and later Aramaic, nor between East and West. We must therefore make careful use of later sources too. Aramaic sources from before the time of Jesus provide evidence of the optional use of the emphatic state in generic expressions. This forms the cultural and linguistic context for the idiomatic use of [UNKNOWN][UNKNOWN][UNKNOWN][UNKNOWN][UNKNOWN] in either the emphatic or absolute state, as attested in later sources.

Method in Our Madness, and Madness in Their Methods. Some Approaches To the Son of Man Problem in Recent Scholarship

A successful solution to the Son of Man problem requires the recon struction of sayings in the original Aramaic. Some sayings emerge as examples of an idiomatic use of general statements with particular reference to the speaker. Other sayings have been formed under the influence of Dan. 7.13. The number of these has been exaggerated by scholars who have not worked with Aramaic originals. This has seri ous consequences for appreciation of the possible referring power of bar nash(a), with exaggerated notions of what could be achieved by putting it in the definite state, or by use of a demonstrative not reflected in Gospel sayings. We should infer a core of genuine sayings conforming to Aramaic idiom, a secondary group influenced by Dan. 7.13, and a penumbra of sayings which develop further the church's known con cerns with the death and parousia of Jesus.

The Son of Man in the First Gospel

Perhaps it is foolhardy at present to attempt to understand what the first evangelist means when he uses the term Ό υίòς το άνωρώπου. Scholars are divided about the significance of the term both in Jewish eschatological speculation and as an Aramaic idiom. They are divided over the contribution of Jesus and of the early church to the Son of man sayings in the synoptics. Did Jesus preach about a future Son of man who would play a role in the eschatological drama and the church identify Jesus with that figure? Did Jesus use an Aramaic idiom which was misunderstood by a church interpreting their experience of the resurrection in the light of Daniel 7? Is ‘the Son of man’ a title, and is it a Christological title or a symbol for the saints? It is not surprising that articles are appearing with titles like: Can the Son of man problem be solved?

The Unity Of The Aramaic Acts

The most interesting contribution to New Testament criticism in recent times has come from a scholar in another field. Professor Torrey, a student of Semitics and particularly of the Aramaic, the language of the common people in Palestine before and after the Christian era, has propounded a new theory regarding the Book of Acts. Chapters 1 1b —15 35 are thought by him to have comprised an Aramaic book written about 49 or 50 A.D., which Luke later procured in Palestine and translated as faithfully as he was able, at the same time adding the remaining chapters himself in Greek on the basis of his own knowledge and investigation. The two parts of the book are accordingly designated I and II Acts, respectively. The evidence for the hypothesis is primarily linguistic. A striking series of Aramaisms and of mistranslations which can be plausibly corrected on the basis of the Aramaic, is found in I Acts, while in II Acts the reflections of Aramaic idiom are rare and instances of mistranslation are wholly lacking. The literature of the subject is not yet large, but a careful résumé and discussion of the new theory has appeared from the pen of Professor Foakes-Jackson. Since he questions the validity of Professor Torrey's more important deductions—conclusions whose correctness had been accepted almost without qualification by the present writer—a further consideration of their claims to credence may be permissible.

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology. (Concluded)

Previous articleNext article FreeA Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology. (Concluded)C. LeviasC. Levias Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 16, Number 2Jan., 1900 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/369361 Views: 83Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (1895-1941), which is continued by the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1942-present). Copyright 1900 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Yochanan Breuer Aramaic in late antiquity, (Jun 2006): 457–491.https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521772488.020

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology (Continued)

Previous articleNext article FreeA Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology (Continued)C. LeviasC. Levias Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 15, Number 4Jul., 1899 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/369342 Views: 113Total views on this site Journal History This article was published in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (1895-1941), which is continued by the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1942-present). Copyright 1899 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology (Continued)

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology (Continued)

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology. (Continued)

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology. (Continued)

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology. (Continued)

Previous articleNext article FreeA Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology. (Continued)C. LeviasC. Levias Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 14, Number 2Jan., 1898 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/369267 Views: 22Total views on this site Journal History This article was published in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (1895-1941), which is continued by the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1942-present). Copyright 1898 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. Morphology

Previous articleNext article FreeA Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud. III. MorphologyC. LeviasC. Levias Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 14, Number 1Oct., 1897 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/369259 Views: 25 Journal History This article was published in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (1895-1941), which is continued by the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1942-present). Copyright 1897 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud.

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud.

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud

Previous articleNext article FreeA Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian TalmudC. LeviasC. Levias Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 13, Number 2Jan., 1897 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/369226 Views: 53 Journal History This article was published in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (1895-1941), which is continued by the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1942-present). PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud

A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud