karamel <karamel@REMOVEoncable.dk> wrote in message news:<3DD458C8.5CBA76FC@REMOVEoncable.dk>...
> Efter fundet af kisten med de påståede rester af Jesu broder kommer den
> ene overraskelse efter den anden. Nu fandt jeg dette:
>
>
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/14/39518.html
>
> I begyndelsen troede jeg, det var en spøg... Men det lyder seriøst nok.
> Hvad synes I?
At vi skal spise brød til. Se f.eks.:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary.htm
[...]
In what Aramaic dialect is the inscription written, and is that
dialect appropriate for first-century Jerusalem? It turns out that
although the dialect of the inscription can be made to fit into
first-century Jerusalem, it actually fits much better with the
Galilean dialect of the late second to sixth century. There are two
linguistic indications that suggest the dialect of Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic, which was used in texts and inscriptions from Galilee of a
century or more later.
The first indication is the use of the possessive suffix on the
word "brother" in "brother of Jesus." The ossuary inscription spells
it, in Aramaic, as -uy. In texts and inscriptions of first-century AD
and BC Judea, it is nearly always spelled -uhy. There is only one
instance of the shorter spelling: in an unusual text called the
Genesis Apocryphon (21:32-22:1). The text's editor, Dr. Fitzmyer,
assumed it was a spelling error. In all known Jerusalem Aramaic
inscriptions, it is spelled -uhy. In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of
Galilee in the late second century and beyond, the -uy spelling is the
main one in both inscriptions and texts.
The second indication that this inscription might fit better into
Galilee of later centuries comes from the way it indicates the "of"
found in "brother of Jesus." Aramaic often indicates "of" simply by
putting two words together and changing the last letter of the first
word. The James' inscription actually spells out the "of" using the
Aramaic letter for "d." This frequently happens in the Aramaic
translation texts (i.e., the Palestinian Targums) and the inscriptions
of the later dialect of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. In the Aramaic
inscriptions found in Jerusalem, however, this form never appears.
Instead, the writers repeatedly chose the first way of indicating
"of."
The three questions concerning the ossuary and its inscription
provide an indication of how to understand the future discussion in
the press of this find. The questions are answered by Lemaire and
others with the response: yes, it fits into first-century Jerusalem.
But readers should also ask whether it fits elsewhere as well. An
analysis based on the earliest available evidence from the press
suggests that the ossuary may fit as well or even better into Galilee
of the second or third century AD. It will be fun to follow the coming
scholarly debate
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary.htm
Venlig hilsen
Villy Dalsgaard