Shlama Akhay,

Let us analyze the Poetry of the Magnificat of Maryam, as recorded in Luqa, according to the rules of Semitic prose:

First 3 lines are composed of a Synthetic Parallelism, followed by a a third line which forms a climax to the previous couplet -

"My soul magnifies Mar-Yah,
And has rejoiced my spirit in Alaha my Saviour,
Because He has looked upon the meekness of His handmaid"

The next 3 lines are identical, forming a Synthetic Parallelism, followed by a a third line which forms a climax to the previous couplet

"For behold, from now on all generations will give blessings to me,
Because He who is mighty has done great things for me,
And Holy is His Name"

The next 2 lines form a Antithetic Parallelism

"And His mercy for ages and generations,
Is upon those who fear Him"

The next 2 lines form a Synonymous Parallelism

"He has accomplished victory with His arm,
And has scattered the proud in the thought of their hearts"

(Notice the dual Semitic idioms - "Thoughts in their hearts", to a Semite, the center of intelligence was not in the brain, but in the heart, and "Accomplished victory with His arm")

The next 2 lines form a Antithetic Parallelism

"He has cast down the mighty from the seats,
And has exalted the meek"

The next 2 lines, again, form a Antithetic Parallelism

"The hungry He has satisfied with good things,
And the wealthy he has dismissed empty-handed"

The last 3 lines form a Synthetic Parallelism, followed by a a third line which forms a climax to the previous couplet

"He has helped Israel His servant,
And He has remembered His mercy,
as He spoke with our Fathers, Awraham and his seed forever"

For someone writing in Greek - Luqa sure knows how to write great Aramaic poetry, with proper prose!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #0
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-2001 AT 05:54 PM (CT)

Yes Akhi Paul-- wonderful!

MAGNIFICAT? TRES MAGNIFIQUE, NO?

And Luqa also does one more thing in this masterful poem-- he quotes Isaiah 53 WITHOUT quoting Isaiah 53!

Consider:

"Who would have believed our report? And to whom HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED? For he started as a tender sapling from dry ground..."

In Isaiah, the "arm of YHWH" is revealed to be the Messiah who saves us from sin. In the Magnificat-- GUESS WHAT?-- same EXACT thing! The poetic structure that Isaiah 53 has is also imitated in the Magnificat-- and these poetic nuances are NOWHERE in the LXX.

So, what this all proves is that if Luke quoted the LXX it was only in his Greek translation to Greek readers. Whereas Aramaic Luke follows the exact same Semitic poetic conventions of Hebrew Isaiah 53. In fact, the Magnificat and Isaiah 53 are the exact same type of poem. But...knowing the Greek-- alas, sigh-- is still NOT enough. I know, I'm upset too...NOT!

Shlama w'b(oo-hoo)urkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi,

It's amazing, it's all Semitic - through and through. Even when I read the various Greek versions, I only see Greek skin - the veins are pulsating in Aramaic.

We Christians (Nazarenese, etc.) are the only ones in the entire world of religions where the scriptures we have (supposedly) skipped the written stage in their original language, and have been "preserved" in another, foreign (alien) tongue.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi,

Of course it good Aram. you don't think MiRyam spoke Greek?

Also, I would think there would be tramendous oral useage due to its auditorial qualities.

I mean read it out loud. Was the Galilean dialect close to what you are teaching on this site?

Shlama,
Iakov

In reply to message #2
 
I do not have the pleasure of understanding you Iakov...

I don't doubt that Maryam spoke Aramaic nor that this is an Aramaic oral source.

What I DO DOUBT is the preposterous idea that an Aramaic oral source is put compositionally into Greek AND COMPLETELY BYPASSES THE WRITTEN STAGE IN ITS NATIVE LANGUAGE.

Let us remember the main assertions about Luke that Greek primacists make. They say that it is the best Greek in the GNT, and I agree-- although Hebrews is pretty good too. They say that Luke is writing in a high literary style for an educated readership as opposed to Mark's rudimentary and forceful style, and here again, I agree.

Hoever, where we part company is the fact that it sounds rather bizarre that, considering Luke's audience, that he would not also draw from the extensive Hellenistic poetic conventions that make Greek one of the best languages for this purpose. This you know as well as I if not better. The entire purpose for speaking Greek in breathing an non-breathing accents is to provide a kind poetic song like quality even to prose, and this is true in both Classical and Koine.

So, when GPs say that Luke's audience was probably not even a Hellenistic Jewish one but pure Gentiles with little understanding of these matters, it seems odd that the Semitic conventions would be followed by this "Gentile" writing for other Gentiles.

Therefore, in my view, the burden of proof is on you to explain how this Aramaic written stage is skipped, and why. From my end, Luke's use of eyewitness records to make his "orderly account" (1:1-5) almost guarantees that he is dealing with both oral and written Aramaic sources that he edits in Aramaic as would be expected before translating into Greek.

This is what is not dealt with. If you acknowledge Aramaic oral sources, then prove to me that were NOT written down first in that language.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

In reply to message #3
 
>I do not have the pleasure
>of understanding you Iakov...
>
>I don't doubt that Maryam spoke
>Aramaic nor that this is
>an Aramaic oral source.
>
>
>What I DO DOUBT is the
>preposterous idea that an Aramaic
>oral source is put compositionally
>into Greek AND COMPLETELY BYPASSES
>THE WRITTEN STAGE IN ITS
>NATIVE LANGUAGE.

Actually, I had a question about that for you learned ones. I understand the talmidiim of the Rabbiim were to memorize their teachings and no actual notes were kept until much later they were put to the pen. Is it not possible that first century common people could have used other common writing material in place of papyrus? I understand it may not have been cost effectivce in at the time as it was very expensive.

Also keep in mind I don't deny it may have been in writing as there was a semitic gospel written referred to by Papias. What I deny is that Luqa originally wrote it. I think it was one of his source texts. I think Luqa actually spoke to Mary and since he originally hailed from Antioch b'Surya before practicing in Troas he most certainly spoke Aram/ (But it would be a Syrian Dialect right? Also, how different is the Syrian dialect from the Galilean for instance? And also is the modern dialect of Syriac spoken only by Christian Syrians as those Syrians I know speak only Arabic (they are Muslims)?
>
>Let us remember the main assertions
>about Luke that Greek primacists
>make. They say that
>it is the best Greek
>in the GNT, and I
>agree-- although Hebrews is pretty
>good too. They say
>that Luke is writing in
>a high literary style for
>an educated readership as opposed
>to Mark's rudimentary and forceful
>style, and here again, I
>agree.
>
>Hoever, where we part company is
>the fact that it sounds
>rather bizarre that, considering Luke's
>audience, that he would not
>also draw from the extensive
>Hellenistic poetic conventions that make
>Greek one of the best
>languages for this purpose.

Why? Josephus doesn't use it. Consider his audience.
And he too is writing in the historical genre.

>This you know as well
>as I if not better.
> The entire purpose for
>speaking Greek in breathing an
>non-breathing accents is to provide
>a kind poetic song like
>quality even to prose, and
>this is true in both
>Classical and Koine.

That quality is not absent in the areas where Luqa is narrating and not detailing historical events.
>
>So, when GPs say that Luke's
>audience was probably not even
>a Hellenistic Jewish one but
>pure Gentiles with little understanding
>of these matters, it seems
>odd that the Semitic conventions
>would be followed by this
>"Gentile" writing for other Gentiles.

I think we have to consider it was a hellenistic Jewish one with Gentiles. In fact I think because of his association with Paul, who's missionary practice was to the Jew FIRST and then to the Gentile, Luqa remained somewhat true to the sources. But, considering that Luqa's use of Greek grammatical construction & syntax is outstanding Theophilus was probably a God-fearer or proselyte.

>Therefore, in my view, the burden
>of proof is on you
>to explain how this Aramaic
>written stage is skipped, and
>why. From my end,
>Luke's use of eyewitness records
>to make his "orderly account"
>(1:1-5) almost guarantees that he
>is dealing with both oral
>and written Aramaic sources that
>he edits in Aramaic
>as would be expected before
>translating into Greek.
>
>This is what is not dealt
>with. If you acknowledge
>Aramaic oral sources, then prove
>to me that were NOT
>written down first in that
>language.

Refer to my quest. above.
>
>Shlama w'burkate
>Andrew Gabriel Roth

Shlama,
Iakov.

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

">Of course it good Aram. you
>don't think MiRyam spoke Greek? "

AKKKKHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

But Akhi, Luqa wrote it! And he is the only one who preserved this!

Don't you think that Luqa at least knew Aramaic?

">Was the Galilean dialect close
>to what you are teaching
>on this site? "

From what we can tell, Yes. The Galileans (and Samaritans) were, in reality, Assyrians (read 2 Kings.) Their dialect was 99.9% the same as that of Mesopotamia and Syria (Edessa).

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #5
 
Akhi Paul,

>
>

AKKKKHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

>But Akhi, Luqa wrote it!
>And he is the only
>one who preserved this!
>
>Don't you think that Luqa at
>least knew Aramaic?

Asolutely. Who else interviewed the eyewitnesses?
>
>
>">Was the Galilean dialect close
>>to what you are teaching
>>on this site? "
>
>From what we can tell, Yes.
> The Galileans (and Samaritans)
>were, in reality, Assyrians (read
>2 Kings.) Their dialect
>was 99.9% the same as
>that of Mesopotamia and Syria
>(Edessa).
>
Also does the Galilean dialect vary significantly from the dielect spoken in Judah?

Todah.
Shlama,
Iakov.

In reply to message #6
 
Shlama Akhi,

">Akhi Paul,
>
>
>>
>>

AKKKKHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Me too.

">Also does the Galilean dialect vary
>significantly from the dielect spoken
>in Judah? "

None of the dialects varied to the extent that they were not mutually comprehensible.

Consider the fact that Maran Eshoa spoke with Galileans, Samaritans, Syrians (the woman at the well) and Judeans. They seemed to have understood each other quite well.

You could tell by someone's accent, and in some cases word-choice, which dialect they spoke (c.f. Keepa at Maran's arrest.)

It was (and still is today) somewhat like the various modern Arabic dialects. Someone from Iraq could speak with someone from Egypt, but the dialectic differences would be noticed by the two speakers.

Another question you asked in a different thread - Aramaic today has 16 modern dialects, spoken by Christians, Jews and Muslims (believe it or not!)

These dialects survive among the Assyrian Christians (Nestorian, Chaldean and Syriac), among the Jews of Iraq and Iran, and some groups of Muslims in Turkey (originally Christian Assyrians, but converted 400 years ago.)

Some have altogether forgotten Aramaic and speak only Arabic today. Some speak only Kurdish....others only Turkish. Our people here in the West are adopting English and forgetting their native language. Some speak combinations of all the above.

One of the problems when you are persecuted and have no homeland.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4