Pronunciation please.

[dean]

Hello,
I was just rewatching the film by Mel Gibson yesterday evening- about Jesus. And the second time around it is equally just as horrifying.
One thing I was curious about with regards to Alexander was the following.
In the film, Jesus's followers call him "Jeshua" which is more or less the pronunciation not the spelling of his name in Aramaic
So I was just curious that if they ever have enough guts to make another Alexander film after the last "attempt"- and did it in the language Alexander would have used, how would Alexander's name have sounded?
Cheers!
Dean.

[bob]

First of all, Jeshua is not really right, it is "Yeshua" or even more correctly "Yehoshua." (i.e in English it would be Joshua, but names Joshua and Jesus are the same in Greek as IESOUS) Since I am still trying to figure out the Macedonian dialect, I would have much of an idea as per how Alexander's name would have been pronounced, but due to his coinage I would place a strong bet on "Alexandros" (when used in the nomitive form that is, but his coins are in the case that implies the word "of" which would be genetive.)As per Mel Gibson, he is not at all historically accurate. First of all Jesus did not speak Aramaic but Hebrew. Second, if you ever go to Jerusalem, you will not see a lot of tall trees to cut down. In other words Jesus was not crucified 30 feet up in the air on a long pole. That part of Israel (South, i.e. Jerusalem) is a desert. In order to get wood that big to Israel, you would have to do what solomon did, and that would be to chop down cedears in Lebanon, take them by horseback to the sea (i.e. Tyre or Sidon) and then ship them to Joppa, and take them by horseback to Jerusalem. The Romans would never go to such an expense to kill a mere jewish "criminal." Jews were crucified on Olive trees, with a cross beam (staurus) roped around it. They were also crucified naked. Several on teh same tree, they died by sufficating, and the legs would be broken later so they would not be able to push themselves up to breath. Thus, Jesus was whispering to two other criminals on the same tree, he couldn't shout 20 yeards to the next guy on the next cross, so to speak.) The idea was to make their death with Excruciating pain, hence the word "excruciating" comes from the word to "crucify." Mel Gibson's Passion is about as historically accurate as the Alexander film by Oliver stone, which doesn't say a whole lot about the accuracy of the film...

[bob]

BTY, Olive trees are not very tall, about 8 feet, they have small branches, hence the roman's used "staurus" (cross beams) to rope around the trees. If you ever walk through the garden of Gatsemene (garden of the olive press is how to translate "gat-semane") you would see a bunch of 8 feet tall trees, with huge trunks, these trees look "different" to Americans who are not used to seeing them.
As per doing a movie in Macedonian dialect or ancient greek, I am not so sure many audiences will sit through a bunch of subtitles. On top of that, it is not like any scholar would be involved with the film, so the pronunciations I am sure would be wrong, and not to mention, probably politically motivated to please the majority who would take a Macedonian dialect of Greek to be "obsene." I would like a new movie to be done, one much more historically accurate, but I don't see that happening...
Bob

[Efstathios]

Alexandros The names were pronounced the same in almost all of greece. Hefestion,Klitos,Filotas,Krateros, e.t.c it would be nice to make a film in the ancient greek language,but we only know how attic was pronounced ,not macedonian.We only make assumptions about macedonian.

[Efstathios]

Bob you cannot know if the romans brought wood from Lebanon for the crucifictions or not.Maybe the did or maybe they didnt.But there are also indications that many crusifictions were indeed made in a pole in Jerusalem. "First of all Jesus did not speak Aramaic but Hebrew" Well that is something that we also dont know.I have found this: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s1066733.htm It is interesting to see that Jesus may have used two or even three languages.Greek,aramaic and hebrew.But the thing is that we dont know exactly if aramaic was still a dominant language in the time of Jesus. What we know though is that all of the eastern roman empire spoke greek as the lingua franca.And in the region of Israel the language was established since ATG's time.Surely the people spoke aramaic,or hebrew (that is yet unknown,and in what extent),but also greek.Jesus was a galileean.In the time of Jesus Galilee was surrounded by a number of Greek cities. There was also in Galilee a group of ten Greek towns,the Decapolis.So the greek element there was maybe even dominant.Peter was from galilee too,and thus may have been speaking greek also.Philip and Paul were greeks. We dont know though what was the language that Jesus used when he spoke to his followers,or to the people that gathered to listen to him,because we dont know in what extent the people spoke greek or hebrew-aramaic.

[bob]

I am fluent in Hebrew Greek and Aramaic, and have a BA and MA from Hebrew University in Israel, and as a student took part in digs or studies in 59 different sites in Israel.What did Jesus say on the cross? Was it "Eli Eli Lama savach tani" in HEBREW or was it "Eloi Eloi Lama Savachtani" in Aramaic?First, let me state that the gospels are clear that the mases watching Jesus felt he called on Elijah. Eli is a shortened form of Elijah's name. Thus, Eli would have been what Jesus said, since Eloi in Aramaic can ONLY mean "MY God my God" whereas in Hebrew ELI ELI can mean "My God My God" or Elijah, Elija.
Second; you know very little about archaeology, and yes, the traditional cross picture is not historically acurate. If you believe Hey ZEUS or Jesus rose from the dead, good for you. Can we leave it on the forum? You think Mel Gibson is more Gospel than Oliver Stone?Not to mention, look this up, Look up the Psalm Jesus quoted on the Cross. Then look up the Hebrew. The Hebrew is not Eli Eli Lama savachtani but "Eli Eli Lama Azavtani." The reason why Greek NT scholars don't know this is because they can't read Hebrew. Azav is Biblical Hebrew to Abandon, but "Zavach" is Biblical Hebrew "to Sacrifice" Jesus said "My God (or my Elijah) why did you sacrifice me?" That indeed suppossedly was why he came right? As a sacrifice. If the Hebrew in the Psalms doesn't match the Hebrew in the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, or Luke, then Jesus wasn't quoting the Psalm. Get over it.

[kennyxx]

Bob hailIndeed ive seen some documentaries etc. And the opinion i came to was that criminals were indeed crucified across tree.Besides there are any crazy things in the Bible and indeed Gibsons movie. Jesus was either the son of god or there is no way he could have carried a lolipop stick let along a great big wooden cross after the beating he took. No I dont believe JC was the son of god history and science can put most religious stories to bed as the same logic tatally disproves Greek Mytholgy. Religion is the next step.After a few bears in past time and following a medium to harsh kicking I found it hard enough to lift myself out of bed let along carry a huge cross whilst people were hurling abuse.The starnge thing after all the stick Jesus got then the abuse from the people why didnt Jesus say sod this and beam me up father. These people Im supposed to be dying to save just aint worth it.Kenny

[bob]

More latin manuscripts were found at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) than Aramaic, and more Greek manuscripts were found at Qumran than Aramaic. Does this mean Jesus spoke Aramaic? Do you know that the Greek word in the Gospels is "Ebreon" and not "Aramit." Thus, the Greek gospels state clearly the Jews spoke Hebrew, for the Greek word for "Hebrew" in the Gospels is "ebreon" and not the word for Aramaic or Persain.

[bob]

Fluent at reading NT Greek, I can pick up A Greek NT and read it without english, the Iliad, another story...

[bob]

You know, we should end this thread, it is not a religious forum. People get offended talking politics and religion, we can agree to disagree, and you know, I still feel spiritually raped by religion (monotheistic) and its lies and negative effects on my family, not to mention, what happened to my family in europe through the ages, to a Jew, the cross is nothing but a sword, so before myself or anyone else gets offended, lets end this...Thanks

[Efstathios]

When did this turn into a religious matter?We are only examining some facts,historical facts,like the crucifictions,Galilee,the languages e.t.c,since the subject was brought up.But if you feel offended we stop it. Everyone has his own beliefs or faith.We are not discussing about faith here,or if it's right or wrong.And yes you are right,the cross has been used as a sword many times in the past,but lets not tear everything down...

[dean]

Hello,
A simple- "Alexandros"would have sufficed!!!!!Dean.

[jan]

Have you ever read Beowulf? English itself is nothing like its origins. Why would Macedonian, Greek, French or any other language sound the same today as it did yesterday? Languages all change over time.

[cynisca]

Greetings,
I would happily sit through 3 hours of subtitles if a film of Alexander was shot using genuine 4th century bce Macedonian/Greek/Persian etc dialect......!
Interesting comment about the olive trees being used for crucifixons, I didn't know that...
Ironic when you consider the olive branch was and still is a symbol of peace......
regards
Cynisca

[cynisca]

Greetings,
I know this thread is a little old...but I came across something just recently.
Waldemar Heckel, J.C. Yardley, Alexander the Great. Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History..
Reviewed by Jona Lendering.....
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-02-13.html
On discussing the Babylonian cuneiform texts, he says:

The correct rendering of Alexandros would have been A-lek-sa-an-dar-ru-su, but until now, no tablet has been discovered that uses this Greek name. Instead, after some first attempts to render the conqueror's name, the Babylonian scribes settled upon A-lek-sa-an-dar.

Then follows with

Probably, this only shows that the scribes found it difficult to render a foreign name. On the other hand, it can not be excluded that Alexandar is the Macedonian name by which the conqueror of Asia was known to his courtiers

.
regards
Cynisca