What were the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES of the BIBLE? And why does it matter? A basic introduction...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лис 2022
- Hey there, Bible enthusiasts and curious minds! Welcome back to our channel. Today, we're delving into a fascinating topic that has intrigued scholars, theologians, and history buffs for centuries - the original languages of the Bible. Have you ever wondered what languages the Bible was written in, and why it's essential to understand this historical aspect? Well, you're in the right place because in this video, we'll explore the ancient languages of the Bible, their significance, and how this knowledge can deepen our understanding of this sacred text. But before we dive in, be sure to hit that "subscribe" button and ring the notification bell so you don't miss any of our enlightening content. And don't forget to leave a like if you're as excited as we are to uncover the mysteries of the Bible's original languages. #Bible #BibleLanguages #BibleHistory #BiblicalScholarship #BibleStudy #BibleOrigins #LanguageMatters
#BiblicalLanguages
#Hebrew
#Greek
#BibleTranslations
#BiblicalScholarship
#BibleStudy
#BiblicalTexts
#BiblicalLanguagesExplained
#AncientLanguages
#BiblicalHebrew#KoineGreek
#BibleHistory
#BiblicalStudies
#ScriptureLanguages
#OriginalBibleTexts
#OldTestament
#NewTestament
#BibleScholar
#Linguistics
#biblewords
#aramaic
#syriac
#ugaritic
#biblicalstudies #biblecollege #seminary #biblehistory #biblicallanguages #biblelanguages #biblicalgreek #biblicalhebrew #hermeneutics #bibledaily #biblegram #biblical #hebrewbible #hebrewoldtestament #torah #penteteuch #oldtestament #newtestament #ancientneareast #alexandria #septuagint #LXX #aramaic #Peshitta #bibletranslation #textcriticism #divedeeptogether #exegesis #exegese #exégesis
I know you were trying to make this very simplistic for those that have no knowledge of the subject. And I am glad you finally got around to mentioning the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate the Septuagint and are the oldest copies of the Bible that we have and I’m glad you finally mentioned the Syriac or aramaic of the New Testament known as the Peshita, but there are even older versions than in Syriac. One thing that you failed to mention is, that there are at least 10 church fathers that mentioned that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. And also, there is a few scholars of the past that wrote that the book of Hebrews was written in Hebrew. So the New Testament cannot be considered an entirely Greek manuscript. There are three ancient manuscripts of the book of Matthew, that have been preserved in Hebrew. Known as the, shem tov text, the du tillet, and munster text. I think it would be nice if you updated your video not everybody wants a simplified meal.
The audience for this video is not grad school folks. Well spoken, mostly. However, I am totally aware of the "Hebrew" references about MT et al, and they are best explained as those in the Indo-European language (the Greek fathers) world lumping all Semitic stuff under "Hebrew." And in fact, to an outsider, they kinda looked the same. Truth is, Hebrew was no longer a living language during NT times thus there would be no incentive to write a missionary document (which the gospels were) to a non-existent language group. Hebrew during NT times was like Latin in early 20th century Roman Catholic contexts. No one spoke it conversationally but it was used for study and liturgy. Greeks calling Aramaic/Syriac "Hebrew" is kinda like the English in PA calling Germans "Pennsylvania Dutch." Or Columbus calling the natives "Indians." And you are right, the NT was not exclusively a product of the Greek language. Obviously the message of the NT started with the voice of Jesus teaching in Aramaic. The NT was a product of a generations-long dance between Aramaic and Greek, a chicken and the egg relationship. In 1 Cor, Paul, a hellenist if there ever was one, even calls Peter by his Aramaic name. If the NT were ice cream, it would be a two-flavor swirl.
Finding this randomly on the internet, and not knowing about your channel, I was not expecting this to be so accurate. Thank you for sharing this. I suppose you went through this quickly for those for whom this is new, but you did simplify it and make it clear. Well done.
Thank you. Please pass the link to others.
Very interesting. Did not know these things. Thank you!
Thank you indeed for the Illuminating statements, sir, and in a particular way for what I for one regard to be an excellent mix of essential, easy to remember because well structured general description and those intriguing, difference making details.
Well done Hous!
Enjoyed that knowledge...is king James a GOOD translation of the manuscripts?
Well done
very informative!
Thanks, pass it on!!
I have nothing to fight about or ho to bars over. I do jave a point of Paul writing and quoting in acts pagan philosophy (at this time Paul had years to study Gentilic materials, other possible solutions are present) Paul spoke directly with pagan churchs. Gallian after Christ died was auoted as having a soft shin, prossibly from Greek influence (it was common hundred years later 50 years±) Paul is the only author to make drequent use of millitary, athletic and comedic greek terms (that I have this far seen). Peter likely has dealt with greek persons and had to deal with gentiles (though Paul seems to have hand the best hand, Luke very good to). Reading the greek text it is like someone was reading the LXX and wrote accordingly. The Jewishness of the text and aramaisms are so many they indicate an authorship familliar with the aramaic toungue, the Greek LXX, as well as familiarities wirg Jewish-Greek writers and Jewish Hellenist society such the negatove view of epicuriand in acts which Philo most definately shared in his work. Mark most definately, John is full with Hebraisms to the point where he uses kai as a vav-conjunctive (if you like grammar that's useful) omitting certain poss. pronouns where in Aramaic they would be there (typically by vav). Rabboni in multiple Gospels seems to indiacte my Rabbi or Rabbon (first more likely as a dialectal peculiarity) as Bartimeus (Bar Time mean born or son of uncleaness, reminds me of David's pennatant psalm, behold I was conceived in iniquity) and Mary use the phrase as well, and the beholds are used of the semetic see verbage comment and used if look or Behold in the OT. Lifted their eyes is another one amongany more pecularities. I see the arguement for the Du Villet munster and the psudeo Shem Tov (author is a convert most likely adoptimg the shem tov text imo) and while I can see that for the texts, the consistent authorship with the Gospels outside of Mathew lead me to belive that theae were written after the Greek Gospels, as the Gospels are very Jewish, the LXX and Philo all have consistent verbage that is unique to Jewish Greek writings, granted the Munster Du Tevilla and Shem Tov (not ibn shaftrut by the pen of the proper Gospel 😊) are beautiful and I appreciate the history of converts you see with some manuscripts and am again just pointing to some things. Paul did write with his own hand in one letter btw. You may be convinced by yhe daya you have seen and that's handy dandy and okay. Outside of the Sepharad gospels ministty I have not seen anyone mention the three text families and it is actually cool seeing them in the comments. Good stuff. I also mentioned that Paul was potentially or indirectly learned or knowledge in Greek before his gentilic ministry. He might od had access to philosophy being in Tarsus, him bieng a Pharisee I might see interlap as some of the Rabbis talked about learning philosophy until the time of the Gentile church. It might be likely those Rabbis had a Hellenist backgrounr or Judaism was less exclusive and Hellenist Jews were more common. Philo had many writings both dealing with platonicism and the word of God as the he dealt with Jewish concepts. Granted this was ~30 BC so the Hellenist mind, as did Judaism wasn't to be in a rabbinic vacuum yet. That came later. Specifically after the council of Yavne do critics consider the influence of Rabinnic Judaism ro have been complete (before hand you could say those were Pharisee, and the groups were diverse and diffused, the Sadducces mentioned by name as well as the Hellenist Jews versus the "Hebrew" Jews. Hebrew refers to usually a verse that is translated from Aramaic in the Gospels, and others are Hebrew as well. Jerusalem has both Jerousalem and Jerosolama or some thing like those two in one chapter sometimes. The use of dialects ti me would probably be Gallian Aramaic as James would probably speak with those of that variety of dialect, yet the encounters we have with Aramaic are from Gallian Aramaic rather than most any other by virtue of the speakers and geographies involved. In John alone Lazarus Mary and the Pharisess and Jesus talked (though likely in different dialects) as the Pharisees. To move on greek was the Lingua Franka in the middle east, but to my knowledge while there are greek documents the offical language was Herodian/Hasmonian Aramaic rather than Greek. The trade language is usually thought of as Aramaic as well. Hebrew in some circles such as Mishnaic Hebrew is thought to have been spoken around this time. Peter is identified as Gallian by his accent. Tge Hebrew found in the three families you listed I remeber as being Mishnaic, however this ws also common in Judaism after the time of Jesus with scribes. I would like to trave some of these documets as they have a puncta extrordinaire on the hey for hashem, and would possibly be an indication of thw time thwy were copied in. From the text they feel middle ages to me and it gives me hope we see Jews come to know Jesus. This proves the transmission and the practice or the time, but not whenever the original documents come from. As there are documetns in Ashkenazi cursive matching some of these documents that are related and they might also come from converts (though it is hard to tell who wants the document, as Shek Tov was written to prove the Messiah is not Jesus, which is why I called the Shem Tov without the obvious doctering Psudeo Shem Tov eariler (also adding insults to the text that is not there such as the centurian saying you are not worthy to come to my house rather than I am not worthy to have you come to my house. Indeed, doctored as well as removing times where Jesus is called Messiah blatabtly as per the previous reference as a rabbinical hit piece written by Shem Tov (this is in the middle ages as well))()). Du Tevilla and Munster aeem more the speed for the Mathew Gospel arguement. You are free to your beliefs, as they are plausable, I am in line with others and the reaarch is of yhe utmost importance as well as Jewish believers in Jesus is an important tipic near and dear to my heart, and the Gospels from Sepharad are like that (Middle ages document with many touches to it from a Catalan or so Translation of the New Testament, check out Ezikiel Margoliouth's New Testament (archive.com ברית חדשה עם טעמים) with nikkudim and Taamim to see what I mean when he (translating from the greek) quotes the LXX or NT in Tib. Hebrew). If converts kept the Gospels then we would still be in safe hands as the Greek Gospels were clearly touched by the people who preport to have written them (even Ephesians) as their Hebraisms are found and Jewish Hellenisms (tendencies of Greek in Jewish hands such as LXX and or Jewish Hellenists, eother way the language doesn't necessitate being subscribed to Hellenistic ideas even being familiar with someone like Philo, as Peter was by the Greek venacular used, similiarly of Hades or Hodes as the word used for Hell or Sheol).
You make so many good points. Thanks so much for putting so much work into your comment. Blessings.
Very impressive blast of information! A collation of bits of data from disparate sources salted into my brain over decades. A pleasure to read, and an encouragement to delve into the many points to ponder!
@@markytemp Pass it on!
So does the Dead Sea Scrolls agree more with the Septuagint or the Masoretic Texts?
Masoretic Texts, obviously, because both the MT and DSS are in Hebrew, and strikingly close in presentation. Semitic languages are more conservative and change less over time than Indo-European languages. There are countless textual variations in the Greek New Testament and far fewer in the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament.
What about the Isiah scroll of the Dead sea scrolls?
Yes indeed. Those fragments are older. But the oldest complete OT/Hebrew Bible complete manuscript is Codex Leningrad from 1,000 AD.
Hold on sir, this is more confusing than simplistic in some ways - You stated "The oldest manuscripts we have of the OT are only about 1000 years old, about one millennium old." - you said this in reference to the Leningrad Codex of 1008 AD. Later in the video, however, you discuss the Septuagint of 330 BC...so which is it? Is what you mean to say that we do not actually have a copy of the Septuagint of 330 BC in dating??? Is it that we only have fragments from that era and thus not a complete copy? Who was it that had a complete copy in Leningrad in 1008AD? Please clarify this if you would please Mr kind scholarly sir 🙏
Point well taken, I'd have to look up when our oldest complete copy of the Greek Septuagint is from. The Septuagint is an outstanding tool for helping to understand the MT, and many of the NT writers quoted directly from it. We have no complete OT copies in Hebrew from before Codex Leningrad. Just fragments like the DSS, and others. We have more copies of ancient LXX manuscripts and external quotes than from the MT, because when Jews were persecuted, the first thing the raiders often did was burn the Torah scrolls.
@@WorldWideWell Very interesting, that does clarify what you meant, thank you sir for your prompt and kind response. I may also look into from when is the oldest complete Septuagint. These raiders you speak of, who were they and from what time period are we talking about?
@@ChristEnlightening The Jews were alway subject to violent pogroms, from the Assyrians to the Babylonians, to the Greeks to the Romans to the Russians (see 'Fiddler on the Roof') to the Nazis. Antisemitism is a metastasized cancer that never seems to go away.
@@WorldWideWell wow so true, I guess I never thought of it that way. They are perhaps the most persecuted people of all time! It seems that they were often travelers and nomads based on the stories-always going to the next place the divine was leading them. People find fault with the Jewish for this I suppose 😕 People also found fault with the Vikings for this, although the Vikings believed everyone had a right to their homeland, which is why they mostly inly conquered invaders and conquesters who were trying to overtake the masses such as GB. Anyway, I’m a free-spirited individual myself , so I get it , not that I’ve been subjugated to the same kind of persecution…whether or not one believes in divine or dark forces being behind events or not it would seem that the salvific teachings and the salvation of the Jewish people by the divine was wished to not be made possible by their destruction throughout all of these time periods of persecutions and holocausts because then those prophecies and teachings cannot be fulfilled and enacted. I know that’s a more theological viewpoint but it is arguably historically sound too that this was the motive of the antagonizing perpetrators. I mean, just look what they did to Yeshua, but He prevailed, Resurrected, and became King of the Universe 🙏🏻☀️✨At least that’s what I see… 🙏🏻
How do we know for sure the original language of the OT was Hebrew? Also how do we know when the original was written if we don't actually have the original?
We have zero evidence that it was anything else but Hebrew, and that's the language that was spoken in that area at the time. The only manuscript evidence says "Hebrew."
@@WorldWideWell "The only manuscript evidence says Hebrew." Can you elaborate?
@@Ones_Complement The people of Israel who wrote the Old Testament spoke Hebrew. There is no evidence that they wrote in any other language until they started writing in Aramaic with the book of Daniel (a few chapters therein).
We have no original copies of any major writings from antiquity (Homer, Plato, the Bible, Roman history, etc.). That doesn't mean we know nothing about antiquity.
Hello Sir ! Interesting documentary - but there are a few items that I think need more clarification.. First things first: Apostle Paul's Epistles were the first New Testament documents that were penned. Now Paul himself DID NOT WRITE at all as he was affected with intensely poor eyesight - probably a bad case of myopia. But that was a HUGE blessing in disguise. It seems quite clear that what Paul did was to dictate his letters, and he seems to have had a robust, capable battery of linguists that were SYMOULTANEOUSLY and INSTANTLY recording dictations in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and - in my opinion - POSSIBLY LATIN as well ! We can see this at the end of almost all his epistles. I know this from a Messianic Jew, who knew quite well the content of The Old and New Testaments. But talking about The New, Paul had no interest in the "primacy" of ANY particular language - all he wanted was to give The Lord's message of Good News out ! The reason we have hardly any copies of Hebrew, Aramaic, and possibly Latin is that during the turbulent military times after The Lord's ascension - most of these were destroyed by the Romans. The Greek works however were saved and transported to the Imperial Library of Rome, at Constantine's command. But Hebrew manuscripts in particular were destroyed. The Aramaic Version of both the OT and especially NT were already "out" to the people of faith in the East. In my opinion, even a Latin (Italick) version of the NT and perhaps OT was somehow handed by the very next generation of the faithful to the people of North Italy (pre-Waldensians), the Huguenots of France and the pre-British inhabitants of The British Isles. It so happens that when Augustine came from Rome to the British Isles to "christianize" them and to bring the brand new copies of the "Vulgate", the Isles dwellers were so happy to get new copies of NEW Bibles ! But when they started reading the NEW Bibles - the content was so different, altered and untrustworthy by comparison to their "old" Italick Version of The Bible that they promptly returned those new copies to Augustine!
Unfortunately this led to a civil war, and most of the first generation of people of faith on the ancient British Isles were massacred !...
But anyways, I think we give too much credit to the Greek language. I've heard pastors saying that Jesus spoke "Koyne Greek". Others say that Greek was the Lingua Franka of most of The Middle East, including Judea. I beg to differ. In a little over a century it is almost impossible to impose a new language on another people even in "the best of circumstances" which were NOT in Judea at that time. Josephus Flavius writes that he had a hard time translating his own writings from Aramaic to Greek, and had to find specialists in Greek for that operation. Interestingly enough, there is not a shred of a page from Josephus' original Aramaic writings, but we sure have his Greek Edition of his copies.
Another point that I want to make that even Paul was not versed in Greek. He was a pupil of Gamaliel, and studies at the Judean Temple were NEVER done in Greek ! Only Hebrew and Aramaic were used for religious studies.
And one other point: In Hebrew 10:5-7 we read Paul's quotation from The Psalms that David, in turn quoting The Lord in His Eternity: "Sacrifices and offerings Thou hast not accepted from Me, but Thou hast prepared for me a body"... A perfect theological point, in perfect harmony and elegance with the entire New Testament - but... where did Paul cite it from ? Apparently from Psalm 40-5-7 (sorry I write from memory...) But all we have in The Masoretic Text is "... "but You have pierced my ears" instead of "but Thou hast prepared for me a body"! How do I know this ? Because in The Septuagint we find the EXACT verse quoted by Paul ! Now I do not have very high and great impression of The Septuagint, but... it just happens that THAT is what we have there !
And another point: Paul would have NEVER quoted in his writings from The Septuagint; Judeans were treating that translation as something unclean ! So then where was Paul citing from ? NOT Septuagint, - but obviously not from The Masoretic Text either ! He must have had access to an OLDER, and MORE accurate Hebrew text of The Old Testament ! THIS is what we must try to find - if at all possible - if not a Hebrew copy of The Original - NOT Masoretic - text - at least a faithful translation from Old Hebrew to Ethiopean, or Armenian or some other ancient language. But we might not find anything afterall since most of these translations were "back-corrected" by modern scholars after the "authentic Masoretic" !
Many well spoken points--but I did not want (for the purpose of this video)_ to get into a lot of detail, but rather present a hyper-simple overview for beginners. In doing so, many details have to be left out of the reader will become overwhelmed. The reader can add details of his/her own over the years through study, but has to have somewhere simple and comprehensible to start. A lot of your assertions are good educated guesses/hypotheses, but as far as I am aware, there is very little clear evidence for some of them. For instance, Paul's eyes. Could be. But the Bible doesn't actually say that and we have no outside sources stating it either. Same with multi-language dictation from Paul. You can make a case for it, but there is no clear evidence that it happened. Truth is, unless we had the New Testament manuscripts (and they are many) we would know surprisingly little about the first century in general. The sheer number of NT manuscripts dwarf all other writing from that time. You are correct that there was nothing called the Masoretic text during Paul's time--that came later. But Semitic languages are remarkably conservative and change little over time (due to their 3-consonant "chordal" roots which sound out of tune to the hearer when changed, something absent in Indo-European languages). The Peshitta is a good example--way less textual variants than the Greek NT. I totally agree with you that we give way too much emphasis to the Greek. The NT was formed in a "dance" between Aramaic and Greek, the initial seed of which was Jesus' oral Aramaic teachings. It's a chicken and egg thing--there is no way to establish primacy of one over the other. But the West favors the Greek, which is indeed a bias. The one thing I would invite you to consider is guarding against a possible "conspiracy" vibe; a common narrative with the cantus firmus being "the sinister Roman church altered things but I know better." Truth is, the Roman Church did not achieve the kind of primacy most assume was always there (politically) until 1453 when Constantinople (along with their rival Eastern church HQ in the Hagia Sophia) fell, and was badly or even chaotically organized from the time of Peter until the Council of Trent in the 16th century (when they finally incorporated in the sense that we think of "organization") as a response to the Protestant Reformation--they had to get their act together to survive. There were exceptions (like the Spanish inquisition and the snows of Canossa) but the bishops of Rome had a heck of a time enforcing much of anything in (chaotic) Medieval Europe. Pre-Reformation Roman Catholics in Ireland and Scandinavia rarely even heard from Rome much less obeyed what they were "told." They were at the ends of long dirt hiking paths. And it's debatable whether or not Constantine was really even a Christian. And when he was emperor, there were five patriarchates which were more or less peers--Rome was only one of them and he didn't live there. And on the LXX and Paul, there simply are many word for word quotes. That's indisputable. Did he have access to other languages/manuscripts which have been lost? Would have had to go to Alexandria to see them, but they probably existed. We just don't know. Intellectual humility is a virtue when looking at antiquity. I don't always get there, but I work at it.
So what about the books and verses that were remove from the KJV? Maybe if they release the original hand written deadsea scrolls and all the original manuscripts written in the African languages that were looted from the continent, then we will be able to prove most accurately for ourselves don't you think?
How much do you understand about lower literary textual criticism and the comparison of all of the ancient manuscripts that we have? And how much do you understand about the history of the KJV and how much of it was based on the Latin Vulgate? Remember, the original versions of the KJV mentioned unicorns twice in the book of Numbers...
So basically, the Aramaic Peshitta NT is much "better" than the Greek? but still greek is a good reference
Greek is great. The New Testament was produced through a dance between Semitic/Aramaic and IndoEuropean/Greek. Like a chicken and the egg, which came first? Impossible to know--but both languages were involved.
@@WorldWideWell alright, but somehow greek nomina sacra is tricky but the Mrya in Aramaic is in plane site.
What was the language Pilate used to ask Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews"? Did Pilate presume that Jesus knew Latin or Greek, or Pilate used Aramaic to be sure that there would be no misunderstanding. Presuming Pilate would have had to memorize his question in Aramaic. Without any question, that was the only query of any relevance to the Roman Governor.
See Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus' main self-referernce (Bar Enosh) was much bigger than a Jewish anointed-leader-messiah.
I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are documented to be 2,000 years old
Yes they are, and they contain remarkable fragments of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, but far short of a complete copy.
So the Bible wasn’t written in Jesus’ language in Aramaic?
Parts of Daniel, yes. And the origin of the gospels was indeed Jesus’ spoken Aramaic teaching.
I’m sorry that you do not understand what I’m talking about. But all I was asking was a way to have a conversation with you. Because I think you’ve left out some very serious and very important considerations. My reply is far more detailed than this comment can give me the space to give, I’ve been studying this for over 50 years, and I think you are much younger than me. So you just might learn something, then again, maybe you won’t. There you go the balls in your court.
I'm a lot older than you think. :-) I had to leave a lot out on purpose. This post is for beginners to get the basics. Blessings!
The oldest manuscript from 1000 a.d, you mean a thousand years after Christ, that is the oldest manuscript? That doesnt make sense
Leningrad Codex. 1,000 AD. Oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament. We have some fragments (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls) which are older.
And god said I will make man "like myself! in three different languages!!!!!!!!
Isaiah is in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Yes it is.
Why do we continue to refer to the Hebrew Bible, as Old Testament?
Our Rabbi Professor in theology matriculation has shared the continued prejudicial bigotry of Western Protestant Christianity.
It is the only scripture utilized by Judaism. 🌹🙏🏾
From a Christian perspective it simply IS the Old Testament, after all, what came before the New Testament? And language usage is organic, not prescribed. I call it the Hebrew Bible often, but shouldn’t be forced to do so. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all use the book, and can call it whatever works best for them. I don’t tell people which words to use; they are adults and can decide for themselves.
it makes no sense the Gospels written by Jews in Israel for the Jews in Israel to be written in greek where is the logic in that 😏
How do you know all four gospels were 1) written in Israel or 2) written primarily to Jews ? I'll wait...
@@WorldWideWell Because the Jews were in Israel the whole time before they started to share the gospel to all nations.
@@WorldWideWell Will the Holy Bible be in Heaven or is it just for the Earth?
@@Love78787 Paul started writing his letters to Gentiles less than 20 years after the crucifixion. The gospels came a little later (when they apostles started dying the Christians wanted to get the Jesus stories written down).
@@Love78787 Great question.
Jesus spoke Geez, ancient Ethiopian language. Hebrew is fake. The garden of heaven is in Ethiopia, Adam and Eve are Ethiopians. The KJV bible in your hand is incomplete and misinterpreted. These called scholars are invented as any biblical understanding doesn’t require to be scholar but spirituality. Wake up you have been lied to.
You can say that, but no one will agree with you that Hebrew was fake.
I understand what you are trying to say because I vaguely agree with your standpoint but you are a bit off the mark. It isn't that Hebrew was fake, it's just that it didn't exist in the time that the stories in the OT took place. What did exist, and is surmised by scholars to be the original language of the characters in the stories of the OT, namely, for example, Abraham, would have been, according to, again, the dates provided in the text and some scholars interpretations of it and its historicity, a language that one might call: Canaanite Phoenician.
@@ChristEnlightening Yes, Abraham was a wandering Aramean from Mesopotamia; not a native of the eventual Hebrew homeland of the highlands of what is now Israel. The Hebrew language as written in the OT was most likely in place by the time of David, at which the full alphabetizing of Hebrew was completed. Before that, we can only make educated guesses. Moses' mother tongue was likely Egyptian, perhaps that's why he hesitated to be the spokesman for the Exodus (which would require Semitic public speaking ability). Most Semitic languages are very much alike--if you can read one, you can usually plow through the others with reference materials. They also change less over time than Indo-European languages (Greek/English/etc). For instance, the Aramaic Peshitta NT has way less textual variation over the centuries than the Greek NT.
@@WorldWideWell Wow. So much wonderful information there. I am now interested to look more into the Aramaic Peshitta for the reasons you mention. Thank you for sharing that. 🙏
can you contact me?
Sure. How can I do that?
Dear sir, I appreciate your reply even though I highly disagree with a number of things you said, since you were able to send me an email without it going onto your list you could send me your phone number and I’ll gladly call you and we can discuss this. I have spent 50 years in the study, I own all the manuscripts that I have referred to and the ones that you have referred to. I’ll gladly discuss this. I have traveled the Middle East a number of times and I believe you are in the error. If you send me your phone number, I’ll gladly call you and we can discuss this. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark Gipe.
I don’t fully understand what you are saying or asking.