Which liturgucal language is closest to Jesus' Aramaic?

[Jerry-Jet]

I just wondered which liturgical language used today would come closest to the Aramaic that Jesus spoke?

I’ve heard that Aramaic isn’t spoken very much in today’s world and that it has changed since Jesus’ time when it was spoken in Galilee.

How close is Syriac to Aramaic?

What language do they use in the Chaldean Rite?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would guess Syriac. Aren’t they the modern Aramaic?

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I don’t know much about Aramaic. But whatever they speak in Syria (perhaps it is Syriac-Aramaic), I thought that it hadn’t changed from the time of Jesus. But, it easily could have.

Anyways, if you search on youtube for “The Lord’s prayer in Aramaic” you can find a number of videos. And it sounds very beautiful. I think it’s really cool that we can listen to the Lord’s prayer in the same language that Jesus and the disciples would have spoken it in.

 

[Khalid]

Syriac is Aramaic in all but name.

 

[malphono]

I just wondered which liturgical language used today would come closest to the Aramaic that Jesus spoke?

I’ve heard that Aramaic isn’t spoken very much in today’s world and that it has changed since Jesus’ time when it was spoken in Galilee.

How close is Syriac to Aramaic?

What language do they use in the Chaldean Rite?

Even in the first century, there were several dialects of Aramaic. The one used in Galilee is often called “Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic” a slight variant of which is still spoken in a small handful of villages in southern Syria. It’s the basis for what was used in the film “The Passion of the Christ” and is used liturgically only by the the Byzantine Orthodox in those villages.

The other 2 major dialects of the “classical” language are more often called “Syriac” but are sometimes referred to as “Aramaic” as well. One is “West Syriac” traditionally used liturgically by the Syriac, Maronite, and Syro-Malankara Churches. The other is “East Syriac” traditionally used liturgically the the Chaldean, ACoE, and Syro-Malabar Churches. The differences between all 3 are mainly in pronunciation, but there are also some differences in vocabulary. West Syriac, for example, incorporated a certain number of Greek words early on, while Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic incorporates a number of Hebraicisms. Nevertheless, someone who knows one dialect can normally make sense of the others without too much difficulty.

There are, in addition, several dialects of what is often called “neo-Aramaic” (influenced to varying degrees by surrounding languages) and are primarily used by the East Syriac population in the northern regions of Syriac and Iraq, as well as southern Turkey and western Persia. West Syriac also has at least one modern variant.

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

Christ spoke “Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic” which is extremely close to Syriac which is used in the Syriac and Maronite churches.

Even in the first century, there were several dialects of Aramaic. The one used in Galilee is often called “Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic” a slight variant of which is still spoken in a small handful of villages in southern Syria. It’s the basis for what was used in the film “The Passion of the Christ” and is used liturgically only by the the Byzantine Orthodox in those villages.

The other 2 major dialects of the “classical” language are more often called “Syriac” but are sometimes referred to as “Aramaic” as well. One is “West Syriac” traditionally used liturgically by the Syriac, Maronite, and Syro-Malankara Churches. The other is “East Syriac” traditionally used liturgically the the Chaldean, ACoE, and Syro-Malabar Churches. The differences between all 3 are mainly in pronunciation, but there are also some differences in vocabulary. West Syriac, for example, incorporated a certain number of Greek words early on, while Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic incorporates a number of Hebraicisms. Nevertheless, someone who knows one dialect can normally make sense of the others without too much difficulty.

There are, in addition, several dialects of what is often called “neo-Aramaic” (influenced to varying degrees by surrounding languages) and are primarily used by the East Syriac population in the northern regions of Syriac and Iraq, as well as southern Turkey and western Persia. West Syriac also has at least one modern variant.

Chaldean (east) Syriac and Normal (West) Syriac differ only slightly in the short vowels.

Eg:

English: GOD, Syriac: Aloho, east Syriac: Alaha
English: Jesus, Syriac: Yeshuo, east Syriac: Yeshua
English: Christ (Messiah), Syriac: Mishiho, east Syriac: Mishiha

 

[malphono]

English: Jesus, Syriac: Yeshuo, east Syriac: Yeshua

There’s actually no “vowel” on the terminal 'ayn, although it’s very difficult to portray in transliteration. It’s spelled yodh-shin-waw-'ayn which renders it Yeshou’ in West Syriac.

While I’m not as well versed in East Syriac, the name is spelled a little differently. The initial yodh carries a small alap above it (IIRC there’s a special name for that spelling arrangement which I simply do not remember), which renders the pronunciation EEshou’.

 

[patrick457]

Even in the first century, there were several dialects of Aramaic. The one used in Galilee is often called “Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic” a slight variant of which is still spoken in a small handful of villages in southern Syria. It’s the basis for what was used in the film “The Passion of the Christ” and is used liturgically only by the the Byzantine Orthodox in those villages.

The dialects of Aramaic spoken in 1st century Palestine (of which Galilean Aramaic is but one) belong to the Western Aramaic family. All the Western Aramaic languages are nowadays extinct (most dialects of Aramaic surviving today, like Syriac, are all Eastern Aramaic) except for what is called Western Neo-Aramaic, which is the one spoken in three villages (Ma’loula, Bakh’a and Jubba’din) in Syria today.

And no, the Aramaic used in TPotC is not really based upon Western Neo-Aramaic; it’s a constructed dialect mainly based on Biblical (OT) Aramaic, Hebrew and Syriac. The thing is, we are mostly in the dark about 1st-century Galilean Aramaic; even the scholars who try to reconstruct it are divided about which sources to use, whether one should limit oneself to near-contemporary sources or be willing to take later ones into consideration. One of our main sources prove to be the gospels themselves, but we have no absolute guarantee that the bits and pieces of Aramaic therein are really transmitted in Galilean (rather than, say, Judaean). No literary source transmitting the idiomatic and colloquial language spoken in the Galilee at the time of Jesus is available. Very few Aramaic writings of any description survive from that period and not a single piece represents the dialect of the Galilee.

 

[patrick457]

How close is Syriac to Aramaic?

I guess Syriac’s close enough to Palestinian Aramaic, perhaps with the inevitable dialectal differences. Jewish Aramaic AFAIK is highly influenced by Hebrew (and the vernacular Hebrew at that time still spoken in a few areas were themselves in turn influenced by Aramaic).

In later rabbinic literature we have references to a ‘Galilean’ dialect where gutturals are defectively pronounced. The Talmud records a humorous anecdote in which a Galilean in a Jerusalem market asks for amar. The shopkeepers chide him: “You stupid Galilean, do you want something to ride on (hamar ‘donkey’)? Or something to drink (hammar ‘wine’)? Or some clothing (amar ‘wool’)? Or something for a sacrifice (immar ‘lamb’)?” (Mishnah, Eruvin 53b) Granted, these are later sources, but if these elements also represent the case in the 1st century, this might explain a few things like how the name ‘Eleazar’ became ‘Lazarus’ (the initial aleph was dropped: 'Alazar = 'Lazar).

 

[Stephentlig]

I was gonna say Melkite. But then again syriac seems the better answer. Melkite would be close though as it’s all in arabic which is modern day aramaic etc.

 

[patrick457]

I was gonna say Melkite. But then again syriac seems the better answer. Melkite would be close though as it’s all in arabic which is modern day aramaic etc.

Just one correction. Arabic isn’t ‘modern-day Aramaic’, although Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and even Maltese or Amharic are all related in that they are Semitic languages, just as English, German, Dutch, Swedish or Norwegian are Germanic languages. There’s no such thing as a ‘Melkite language’; Melkites were originally the Greek-speaking city-dwellers living in the west of the Levant and in Egypt, as opposed to the more provincial Syriac- and Coptic-speaking non-Chalcedonians (‘Melkite’ was originally a pejorative denoting the ‘imperialists’ who backed the Byzantine Emperor and the council of Chalcedon). They only adopted Arabic when the Muslims began to spread westward.

 

[Stephentlig]

Just one correction. Arabic isn’t ‘modern-day Aramaic’, although Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and even Maltese or Amharic are all related in that they are Semitic languages, just as English, German, Dutch, Swedish or Norwegian are Germanic languages. There’s no such thing as a ‘Melkite language’; Melkites were originally the Greek-speaking city-dwellers living in the west of the Levant and in Egypt, as opposed to the more provincial Syriac- and Coptic-speaking non-Chalcedonians (‘Melkite’ was originally a pejorative denoting the ‘imperialists’ who backed the Byzantine Emperor and the council of Chalcedon). They only adopted Arabic when the Muslims began to spread westward.

oh wow. thanks patrick. very informative post I enjoyed that.

 

[malphono]

Melkites were originally the Greek-speaking city-dwellers living in the west of the Levant and in Egypt, as opposed to the more provincial Syriac- and Coptic-speaking non-Chalcedonians

Well, partially. The city of Antioch itself was bi-lingual (and bi-ethnic), albeit that the “upper crust” was Greek-speaking (much the same syndrome as one can find in Brussels – which is what I’ve heard called “a Flemmish city with a French complex” – where for many years, it was “fashionable” for the local Flamands to be Francophone), irrespective of ethnicity. While I am far less familiar with Egypt, I think the same can be said for Alexandria. In any case, this had absolutely nothing to do with Chalcedon.

(‘Melkite’ was originally a pejorative denoting the ‘imperialists’ who backed the Byzantine Emperor and the council of Chalcedon).

I wouldn’t say it quite that way. In the early stages, there were two groups called Melkites: the “Melkite Maximites” (who ultimately adopted the Byzantine Imperial liturgical usage) and the “Melkite Maronites” (who maintained their Syriac liturgical usage). While the moniker arose because of Chalcedon (and therefore, of course, the Emperor), it was proudly worn. After all, Syria was still part of the Empire.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Syriac is Aramaic in all but name.

But has the languaged developed enough over time? Like Greek (Koine vs. Modern)?

 

[patrick457]

Well, partially. The city of Antioch itself was bi-lingual (and bi-ethnic), albeit that the “upper crust” was Greek-speaking (much the same syndrome as one can find in Brussels – which is what I’ve heard called “a Flemmish city with a French complex” – where for many years, it was “fashionable” for the local Flamands to be Francophone), irrespective of ethnicity. While I am far less familiar with Egypt, I think the same can be said for Alexandria. In any case, this had absolutely nothing to do with Chalcedon.

I wouldn’t say it quite that way. In the early stages, there were two groups called Melkites: the “Melkite Maximites” (who ultimately adopted the Byzantine Imperial liturgical usage) and the “Melkite Maronites” (who maintained their Syriac liturgical usage). While the moniker arose because of Chalcedon (and therefore, of course, the Emperor), it was proudly worn. After all, Syria was still part of the Empire.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[patrick457]

But has the languaged developed enough over time? Like Greek (Koine vs. Modern)?

Syriac was originally an unwritten spoken dialect of Old Aramaic in Assyria/northern Mesopotamia. In 132 BC, the kingdom of Osroene was founded in Edessa (modern Şanlıurfa, Turkey) with Old Syriac as its official language. As an official language, Syriac was given a relatively coherent form, style and grammar that is lacking in other Old Eastern Aramaic dialects. Starting from the 3rd century, Christian churches in Edessa began to use Middle Syriac (aka Literary or Classic Syriac) as the language of worship: Syrian Christian literature are in this language. It was also by this time that we see Syriac develop into Eastern Middle Syriac and Western Middle Syriac. From the 7th century onwards, Syriac gave way to Arabic as the spoken language of the region. The Mongol invasions of the 13th century further contributed to the rapid decline of the language. The language had begun to evolve into Neo-Aramaic dialects.

 

[patrick457]

Scholars have different ways of breaking down the different periods of Aramaic. Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, for instance, proposes that Aramaic passed through five phases:

Old Aramaic (ca. 925 to 700 BC): Attested by numerous small inscriptions and fragments of three Sefire steles.

Official Aramaic, aka Imperial or Standard Aramaic (700 to 200 BC): The official language and lingua franca of the Achaemenid Empire. Attested in several places in Egypt (including Elephantine), in Arabia and Palestine, as well as Syria, Assyria and Babylonia, but even in the Indus Valley. Also the language of the Elephantine papyri and Biblical (OT) Aramaic, specifically the book of Ezra (4:8-6:18; 7:12-26).

Middle Aramaic (200 BC-AD 200): Attestations include the Dead Sea scrolls from Khirbet Qumran and the documents from Wadi Muraba’at, both in the Judaean desert. This phase includes the emergence of real local dialects, including the dialects of Palestine and Arabia (Nabatean, Qumran, Murabba’at etc.), and Syria and Mesopotamia (Palmyra, Edessa and Hatra).

Late Aramaic (AD 200-700): He proposes two large geographical subdivisions: Western (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Samaritan Aramaic and Christian Syro-Palestinian Aramaic), and Eastern (Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Mandaic).

Modern Aramaic (AD 700-present): With many modern (Neo-Aramaic) dialects.

Klaus Beyer, on the other hand, has a different scheme:

1.) Old Aramaic

1. *]Ancient Aramaic (11th century BC-ca. 500 BC)
   *]Imperial Aramaic (ca. 500 BC-ca. AD 200): May be divided into various dialects beginning in the 2nd century BC.
   *]Old Eastern Aramaic and Old Western Aramaic: Largely contemporaneous with Imperial Aramaic, but not used for official documents.
   
   2.) Middle Aramaic (AD 200-medieval period)
   
   1. *]Eastern Middle Aramaic
      *]Western Middle Aramaic
      3.) Modern Aramaic
      
      1. *]Modern Eastern Aramaic
         *]Modern Western Aramaic
         *]Modern Mandaic

 

[Khalid]

I was gonna say Melkite. But then again syriac seems the better answer. Melkite would be close though as it’s all in arabic which is modern day aramaic etc.

Arabic isn’t modern-day Aramaic; it’s no closer, and likely further away, from Aramaic than Hebrew is; they are all Semitic languages and have much in common (notably, the Aramaic script is much easier to read to my Arabic eyes than square Hebrew), but Syriac (“Syro-Aramaic”) is the closest modern equivalent of Christ’s Aramaic, much as Modern Greek is the closest modern equivalent to Koine [Greek], and Coptic to Demotic.

Not to mention that, unlike from what I understand of Syriac, “Arabic” is more like “Chinese” than it is like “Syriac”; it is a series of very distinct dialects or topolects that are not mutually intelligible. If you take an Arabophone from Egypt, one from KSA, and one from the Transjordan area and put them in a room together, they will not be able to follow each others’ words unless they are all college-educated and have learned how to speak MSA (“Al-Jazeera Arabic”: although the Arabic spoken on al-Jazeera is faulty from a classical MSA point of view, it’s widespread enough that it, for the first time in quite a while, has breathed some life in to the language and caused it to change again, although it is simplified from MSA, just as MSA is simplified from Classical).

And the Melkite Church I go to has part (most) of the liturgy in Greek as well, so “Melkite Greek” just isn’t in the name.

 

[Khalid]

But has the languaged developed enough over time? Like Greek (Koine vs. Modern)?

Yes. I’m not sure of the comparable extent (I’m not fluent in Syriac nor Aramaic [beyond what I learned from *The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran] and am only passing fluent in modern Greek).

 

[patrick457]

Arabic isn’t modern-day Aramaic; it’s no closer, and likely further away, from Aramaic than Hebrew is; they are all Semitic languages and have much in common (notably, the Aramaic script is much easier to read to my Arabic eyes than square Hebrew), but Syriac (“Syro-Aramaic”) is the closest modern equivalent of Christ’s Aramaic, much as Modern Greek is the closest modern equivalent to Koine [Greek], and Coptic to Demotic.

Not to mention that, unlike from what I understand of Syriac, “Arabic” is more like “Chinese” than it is like “Syriac”; it is a series of very distinct dialects or topolects that are not mutually intelligible. If you take an Arabophone from Egypt, one from KSA, and one from the Transjordan area and put them in a room together, they will not be able to follow each others’ words unless they are all college-educated and have learned how to speak MSA (“Al-Jazeera Arabic”: although the Arabic spoken on al-Jazeera is faulty from a classical MSA point of view, it’s widespread enough that it, for the first time in quite a while, has breathed some life in to the language and caused it to change again, although it is simplified from MSA, just as MSA is simplified from Classical).

And the Melkite Church I go to has part (most) of the liturgy in Greek as well, so “Melkite Greek” just isn’t in the name.

I think you could also compare it with “English”: English is spoken in a lot of countries and now has many local varieties (‘Englishes’). I don’t know about Arabic since I’m not a speaker, but as someone with English as my second (or probably third) language, while you have similarities across these variants, there are also (obviously) regional differences, especially in areas like slang or certain words.

For example (drawing from my Filipino roots), do you (you as in ‘everyone’) know what a ‘carabao’ is? What about a ‘coupon bond’? What comes into your mind when I say ‘tricycle’?

A little tongue-in-cheek sentence. ‘Marts twenti-payb. I went por a wok outsayd beekos my mader asked mi to buy Kolgeyt and barnis. I said to her, "Mader, I will be da wan who will bai it.’ It was beri sani. Der wer a lat op beehikols on da rowd. On my way hom, I crossed da brids en I saw da istatue on da park. Nir da tserts I met Pader Antonio who was woking on da corridor. Going back at hom, I look at the pridyider and kud nat paynd eni sopdrinks. I should have went to bai dem olso.’