Allah, Aramaic/Syriac, and Were There Three Kings (or More)

[umsami]

So, in the twenty years or so since I've been a Muslim, I'v'e had some Christian friends really have problems with the word "Allah" for God, even though I have an Arabic Bible and I can show them in say John 3:16 that Allah is the word used for God by Arabic speaking Christians.

Was reading this article from the BBC on whether there were more than three Kings (who visited baby Jesus) and I found this fascinating.... the similarities of Arabic to Aramaic (although maybe I shouldn't?)  https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-46650911

"Look, let me show you," he says. "This letter is Olaf in our script, Alef in Arabic. See here, this letter is Lomad, it resembles Lam in Arabic. And He is Ha. Written together, they spell Aloho in Aramaic, the equivalent of Allah in Arabic. So many words from the Koran come from Aramaic."

For 1,000 years, Aramaic was written and spoken right across Middle East. It was the language spoken by Jesus and his followers. The Jewish holy book, the Talmud, was written in Aramaic, and scholars say Arabic script is derived from it. But now, if Aramaic was an animal species, it would be declared critically endangered.

[Roadrunner]

I have a middle eastern friend who says when she watched Jesus Christ movie that was done in Aramaic, shouod could understand a big chunk of it without any translation needed all because she speaks Arabic. 

[Carol in Cal.]

My (very conservative Lutheran) pastor majored in ancient languages.  He knows Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Syriac.  Also Latin I believe.

ETA:  I might be wrong about Syriac.  There is another language that he knows that might be the one--the others I am sure of.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

Also, I don't think it's actually thought that there were 'three kings'.  That's more of a later legend I believe.

It comes from the fact that there were three gifts mentioned.  Also there is reference in the Prophets of Kings being drawn to the light of the Messiah.  But the word for kings in the Bible is more like sages or astronomers or something along those lines.  It's a nice song, but it's not usually taken as if it is intended to be literal; rather, it celebrates the idea that all races are drawn to the Christ child and also describes the significance of the specific gifts.

[PrincessMommy]

My son and daughter in law go to an Orthodox church in the  Antiochian (Arabic) tradition.  Mostly their service is in English but they will sometimes add some Arabic.  My kids went to an Antiochian Orthodox kids camp and the services were mixed English/Arabic.   At our parish for Pascha we read the Gospel reading in all the languages we can gather from parishioners.   This is usually about 12 people at our parish, with everyone doing a verse or so.  One of the ladies at church is Lebanese so we always hear a portion of John 1: 1-17 in Arabic.  I don't understand what the problem is.. I know its an issue for some, but I don't get it either.  

The Three Kings (Wise Men) being three in number is part of ancient tradition.  FWIW, in Orthodoxy, we celebrate their visitation on Christmas not Epiphany.   We call January 6th: "Theophany" and we celebrate Christ's baptism and the "revelation of God in Trinity".   This website had some interesting information about the Wise Men from the East.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Greek-Orthodox-understanding-of-the-three-wisemen-in-the-New-Testsment

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by PrincessMommy

[Faith-manor]

As a music director, I don't use that carol because it is so misleading. This is usually well supported by the pastors that I have worked with, and in some denominations, it is missing from their hymnbooks.

The pastor I currently work with from the church that sponsors the community arts program is fluent in Aramaic, Arabic, Koine Greek, Ecclesiastical Latin, and fluently reads Sumarian, Akkadian ( I think that's the one...hard to remember them all), and Egyptian Hieroglyphs. He's on a linguistics board, and has translated some dead sea scrolls in the past. I should ask him about Syriac.

It has been a very interesting six months. I love picking his brain. 

[EMS83]

I know people who think languages are inherently good or bad or...whatever.  Lord, have mercy on your friends, OP.  I hope they are not too contentious about it.  There's a lot of historical ignorance regarding that area of the world, unfortunately. 

(Another Antiochian here).  🙂 I find our hymns sung in Arabic to be quite beautiful, though I have to go to Youtube for them.  My parish is largely English speaking.

Edited December 23, 2018 by CES2005

[Rosie_0801]

1 hour ago, CES2005 said:

I know people who think languages are inherently good or bad or...whatever. 

 

How do they justify that, when they are (signed languages excepted) all made from sounds? 

[Amira]

Syriac is Aramaic too.  There are still lots of Christians in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq who speak a variety of Aramaic languages.  We have a Chaldean-speaking friend married to an Assyrian-speaking husband living in northern Iraq who usually says she’s a Kurd just to keep things simple even though Kurds speak a completely unrelated language (Aramaic is Semitic, Kurdish is Iranic/Indo-European). It’s hard to keep track of all the different Aramaic languages because locals use different names for the languages than linguists do.  It’s amazing Aramaic has survived this long, although it’s hard to imagine it can continue through the current troubles its speakers are dealing with.  Coptic dropped out of everyday use hundreds of years ago.

[Carol in Cal.]

4 minutes ago, Amira said:

  Coptic dropped out of everyday use hundreds of years ago.

Although this is true, Coptic Orthodox Christians tend to learn it because it is used in their sacred services, which are extremely long and theological.

[Carol in Cal.]

In some places Muslims object to Christians using the name 'Allah' for God, even to the point of legal action.  It's quite a range of experience worldwide.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/malaysia-highest-court-allah-bible-ban

[EMS83]

42 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

How do they justify that, when they are (signed languages excepted) all made from sounds? 

It's really, really flimsy and ignorant.  I mean, I just can't even post it.

And honestly, I can't be too judgmental because I was thisclose to buying it, myself, for which I roundly repent.

Edited December 23, 2018 by CES2005

[Faith-manor]

15 hours ago, Amira said:

Syriac is Aramaic too.  There are still lots of Christians in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq who speak a variety of Aramaic languages.  We have a Chaldean-speaking friend married to an Assyrian-speaking husband living in northern Iraq who usually says she’s a Kurd just to keep things simple even though Kurds speak a completely unrelated language (Aramaic is Semitic, Kurdish is Iranic/Indo-European). It’s hard to keep track of all the different Aramaic languages because locals use different names for the languages than linguists do.  It’s amazing Aramaic has survived this long, although it’s hard to imagine it can continue through the current troubles its speakers are dealing with.  Coptic dropped out of everyday use hundreds of years ago.

We do know Egyptians though that can speak Coptic, and a few that can read it as they have felt it was important to study it to prevent it dying out. The number of people who use it is very small, but one set of friends is now using it in their home daily in order to help their children learn the language. I would hate to see it become an dead language so hope that they are successful and others as well. The main difficulty is that Coptic has not evolved through modern times so it lacks the vocabulary necessary to use it in so many instances. It appears that friends kind of tend to blend Arabic and Coptic when speaking because if you say to the children, "You may use the computer for another ten minutes", they have no Coptic word for computer. It can be very limiting. If there is ever a revival of the language, it will be some sort of blended language. Since worship has not changed through the ages within the Coptic Orthodox Community, it never evolved in the ecclesiastical sense.

There has also been some back and forth about its use as a written language in modern times. The last adopted alphabet was a combination of glyphs based on Ancient Greek and Demotic Egyptian letters. The argument among linguists is that adopting the use of the Arabic alphabet would make it easier for Egyptians since that is the language they read. However, there has been push back from ecclesiastical scholars who do not like the association with the Islamic faith and instead want to Romanize Coptic by adopting the Latin alphabet. This was the subject of scholarly debate for quite a while, but I can't remember which method was adopted. I'm too lazy right now, LOL, to go look it up!

I doubt it will ever come back as any kind of common daily language. But I do hope enough families revive it as much as possible just to keep it alive.

[bolt.]

Why would people be surprised to find that two languages, having some reasonably common history and geography, have substantial similarities between them? Of course they do. What significance am I missing here?

[Faith-manor]

26 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Why would people be surprised to find that two languages, having some reasonably common history and geography, have substantial similarities between them? Of course they do. What significance am I missing here?

American culture. There is very little linguistic, history of language, teaching in our English classes. Whole generations have grown up with absolutely no idea about language groups. They receive only one year of World History out of 13 years in the system, and the way in which it is taught is very poor so little retention. It has left much of our culture without much base on which to think on these things. Additionally, when it comes to religion, within Evangelical Christianity there are groups that do not study the languages in which the Bible was written, discourage teaching pastors from discussing this, all in favor of a pro-King James only translation dogma. I have actually met people who believe the Bible was written in English. It literally has not ever occurred to them to think about this critically.

[bolt.]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

American culture. There is very little linguistic, history of language, teaching in our English classes. Whole generations have grown up with absolutely no idea about language groups. They receive only one year of World History out of 13 years in the system, and the way in which it is taught is very poor so little retention. It has left much of our culture without much base on which to think on these things. Additionally, when it comes to religion, within Evangelical Christianity there are groups that do not study the languages in which the Bible was written, discourage teaching pastors from discussing this, all in favor of a pro-King James only translation dogma. I have actually met people who believe the Bible was written in English. It literally has not ever occurred to them to think about this critically.

I didn’t know king-James-only was that common in America.

I know that some people have never really thought that the book they have in English has a non-English history — just because it’s not something they’ve thought through — but it’s weird to actually believe it and defend it.

[Violet Crown]

The Maronite Church, an Eastern Rite Catholic Church that has always been in communion with Rome, uses Aramaic as its liturgical language. My oldest daughter worships in a Maronite church when she can get to one. Nothing like hearing Our Lord's words of Institution exactly as he said them.

And, yes to American ignorance about languages, liturgical and otherwise. A Catholic acquaintance was incredulous that the liturgy where I worship could possibly be entirely in Latin, because "How can we even know how the ancient Romans pronounced it?"

ETA: Regarding the three kings: Of course there were at least three (one supposes there could have been more); otherwise, whose relics are those in Köln Cathedral? Some other Ss. Casper, Melchior, and Balthazar? 😉

Edited December 24, 2018 by Violet Crown

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

American culture. There is very little linguistic, history of language, teaching in our English classes. Whole generations have grown up with absolutely no idea about language groups. They receive only one year of World History out of 13 years in the system, and the way in which it is taught is very poor so little retention. It has left much of our culture without much base on which to think on these things. Additionally, when it comes to religion, within Evangelical Christianity there are groups that do not study the languages in which the Bible was written, discourage teaching pastors from discussing this, all in favor of a pro-King James only translation dogma. I have actually met people who believe the Bible was written in English. It literally has not ever occurred to them to think about this critically.

 

While this is true, I find that within the evagelical community there is also a significant element that gets really hung up on ancient Biblical languages, as if they could, if only they understood them perfectly, have perfect theological understanding, and even other types of understanding.  I think it's an outgrowth of Biblical literalism.

[Carol in Cal.]

7 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

While this is true, I find that within the evagelical community there is also a significant element that gets really hung up on ancient Biblical languages, as if they could, if only they understood them perfectly, have perfect theological understanding, and even other types of understanding.  I think it's an outgrowth of Biblical literalism.

Actually, no, not so much from Biblical literalism as from the authority of Scripture as revealed by God.

The thinking is that if the original wording was entirely recovered and the original intended meaning well understood that would be exactly what God intended to tell us.  

[Bluegoat]

10 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Actually, no, not so much from Biblical literalism as from the authority of Scripture as revealed by God.

The thinking is that if the original wording was entirely recovered and the original intended meaning well understood that would be exactly what God intended to tell us.  

 

Lots of people believe in the authority of Scripture as revealed by God, but they don't have the same idea about the possibility of uncovering the intending meaning unless they are also Biblical literalists.  It's kind of an impossible idea from the perspective of a Catholic or EO or orthodox Anglican.

[Lucy the Valiant]

The Arabic Christians in our assembly often comment on the linguistic similarities between Arabic and Aramaic / Biblical Hebrew. Having multiple languages represented adds so much to a discussion, even for people unfamiliar with some of the languages. 

[EMS83]

4 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Lots of people believe in the authority of Scripture as revealed by God, but they don't have the same idea about the possibility of uncovering the intending meaning unless they are also Biblical literalists.  It's kind of an impossible idea from the perspective of a Catholic or EO or orthodox Anglican.

Yep.  <Insert boring info about the formation of the biblical canon here>.

[Carol in Cal.]

6 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Lots of people believe in the authority of Scripture as revealed by God, but they don't have the same idea about the possibility of uncovering the intending meaning unless they are also Biblical literalists.  It's kind of an impossible idea from the perspective of a Catholic or EO or orthodox Anglican.

Literalist implies not recognizing times when the Bible is speaking figuratively, which is an inaccurate portrayal of this POV, though.

[Bluegoat]

44 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Literalist implies not recognizing times when the Bible is speaking figuratively, which is an inaccurate portrayal of this POV, though.

 

Well, substitute something else if you think it works better - concretism maybe?  It reminds me of certain Islamic ideas about Scripture and language though it's not an exact comparison. Biblical literalists IME do accept clear figurative speech "I am a vine" sort of thing (though not usually attached to Eucharistic words.)  

What they don't seem to accept is the patristic approach which sees the most important and true meanings of all of the Scriptures as spiritual, and the related idea that any human words - in any language -  are inadequate to express the truths of God and so are pointers or windows to a higher reality - they are images, so to speak, like an icon .  Literalists or whatever you want to call them tend to think of themselves as Bible centred, so you get comments like "I am looking for a Bible based church." The patristic view tends to conceive of itself as Christ centred.