# Horn



## rushalaim

Is Hebrew קרן [_keren_] from Latin [_cornu_] _"horn" _from PIE?
Usually, Semitic has שפרא [_shifra_] _"horn"_.


----------



## inquisitiveness1

rushalaim said:


> Is Hebrew קרן [_keren_] from Latin [_cornu_] _"horn" _from PIE?


No. Most, if not all, Semitic languages use q-r-n to mean "horn" (including Akkadian), thus it is traceable to Proto-Semitic (reconstructed _*qarn_). Proto-Semitic _*qarn _might be a loan from or into Proto-IE _*ḱerh₂-_ though (Might just be false cognates. If there is a loan relation though, it isn't clear what direction it is.)



rushalaim said:


> Usually, Semitic has שפרא [_shifra_] _"horn"_.


Actually, usually Semitic has q-r-n. It is by far the most attested root/word for the meaning of "horn" (assuming "שפרא" even is traceable to Proto-Semitic with the meaning of "horn" in the first place).


----------



## CyrusSH

Persian _sorna_ seems to be from Luwian _zurni_ "horn": سرنا - Wiktionary but _karna_ is said to be from Sogdian: کرنا - Wiktionary I think this one has probably a Semitic origin.


----------



## rushalaim

CyrusSH said:


> Persian _sorna_ seems to be from Luwian _zurni_ "horn": سرنا - Wiktionary but _karna_ is said to be from Sogdian: کرنا - Wiktionary I think this one has probably a Semitic origin.


Perhaps, _"horn"_ is PIE
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱerh₂- - Wiktionary


----------



## CyrusSH

rushalaim said:


> Perhaps, _"horn"_ is PIE
> Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱerh₂- - Wiktionary



Yes but it doesn't mention _karna_, about Sorna: Sorna - Wikipedia "Sorna" simply means horn. This is a result of the Centum-Satem isogloss, and later Grimm's Law. Even in Persian there is another wind instrument whose name appears to be a cognate of both "Sorna" and "Horn", called "Karna" (کرنا); this may stem from a re-borrowing from another language.

I don't know how it can be related to Grimm's Law! But _karna_ can be from either Semitic or a Centum language, like Celtic *_karnos_ → Ancient Greek: κάρνον (_kárnon_, “Gallic horn”).


----------



## rushalaim

If to assume, Hebrew Bible was written when Latin was already commonly used. Then, through the Hebrew Bible, that Latin word [_cornu_] _"horn"_ entered into Semitic languages throughout the Middle East?
Maybe, the meaning of Latin _"cornu"_ was later changed in Hebrew? Maybe Latin _"cornu"_ means _"*corner* of an altar"_ not any _"horn"_?
corner - Wiktionary
https://thesentone.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/brazen-altar.jpg


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> If to assume, Hebrew Bible was written when Latin was already commonly used.


We don't make such an assumption. Certainly not for the Torah.

Also, as @inquisitiveness1 remarked earlier, _quaru = horn _is already attested in Akkadian. This rules out any speculation about a loan from Latin.


----------



## rushalaim

Exodus 34:29-30 of Septuagint (Greek Pentateuch) had _"appearance_ [_of Moses's skin of face_]_"_ not any _"horn_ [_on Moses's skin of face_]_"_
ως δε κατεβαινεν μωυσης εκ του ορους και αι δυο πλακες επι των χειρων μωυση καταβαινοντος δε αυτου εκ του ορους μωυσης ουκ ηδει οτι δεδοξασται η *οψις* του χρωματος του προσωπου αυτου εν τω λαλειν αυτον αυτω και ειδεν ααρων και παντες οι πρεσβυτεροι ισραηλ τον μωυσην και ην δεδοξασμενη η *οψις* του χρωματος του προσωπου αυτου και εφοβηθησαν εγγισαι αυτου

But Latin writes _"horn"_
Cumque descenderet Moyses de monte Sinai, tenebat duas tabulas testimonii, et ignorabat quod *cornuta* esset facies sua ex consortio sermonis Domini. Videntes autem Aaron et filii Israël *cornutam* Moysi faciem, timuerunt prope accedere.

And Hebrew repeats Latin _"horn"_
ויהי ברדת משה מהר סיני ושני לחת העדת ביד משה ברדתו מן ההר ומשה לא ידע כי *קרן* עור פניו בדברו אתו
וירא אהרן וכל בני ישראל את משה והנה *קרן* עור פניו וייראו מגשת אליו


----------



## berndf

The Hebrew text is about 300-400 year older than the Greek one and 1000-1100 years older than the Latin one.

Both, the Greek and the Latin, texts are translation of the Hebrew one.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> The Hebrew text is about 300-400 year older than the Greek one and 1000-1100 years older than the Latin one.
> 
> Both, the Greek and the Latin, texts are translation of the Hebrew one.


Do you have any material proof of your claim?


----------



## rushalaim

Exodus 27:1-2 says about _"corners of an altar"_
https://thesentone.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/brazen-altar.jpg

και ποιησεις θυσιαστηριον εκ ξυλων ασηπτων πεντε πηχεων το μηκος και πεντε πηχεων το ευρος τετραγωνον εσται το θυσιαστηριον και τριων πηχεων το υψος αυτου και ποιησεις τα *κερατα* επι των τεσσαρων γωνιων εξ αυτου εσται τα *κερατα *και καλυψεις αυτα χαλκω

Facies et altare de lignis setim, quod habebit quinque cubitus in longitudine, et totidem in latitudine, id est, quadrum, et tres cubitos in altitudine. *Cornua* autem per quatuor angulos ex ipso erunt et operies illud ære.

ועשית את המזבח עצי שטים חמש אמות ארך וחמש אמות רחב רבוע יהיה המזבח ושלש אמות קמתו
ועשית *קרנתיו* על ארבע פנתיו ממנו תהיין *קרנתיו* וצפית אתו נחשת

So, maybe there was already Latin translation of earlier Greek text, and Latin scribe made an error, later Hebrew translated that blunder from Latin text?


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> So, maybe there was already Latin translation of earlier Greek text, and Latin scribe made an error, *later Hebrew translated that blunder from Latin text?*


Would you please stop this nonsense. The Greek and Latin Old Testaments are translated from Hebrew and not the other way round.


----------



## CyrusSH

It is good to mention that the first letter of the Semitic word is an uvular consonant but the Latin word has a velar consonant, these are very different sounds in Semitic.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It is good to mention that the first letter of the Semitic word is an uvular consonant but the Latin word has a velar consonant, these are very different sounds in Semitic.


This is correct though it would not matter if קרן were indeed a relatively late loan from Latin or Greek (which it is not). Latin and Greek plosives were usually represented as emphatics.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> This is correct though it would not matter if קרן were indeed a relatively late loan from Latin or Greek (which it is not). Latin and Greek plosives were usually represented as emphatics.



In fact it supports a relation between these words, like Arabic _qalam_ from Ancient Greek κάλαμος (kálamos, “reed”): قلم - Wiktionary and Ancient Greek κᾰ́ννη (kánnē) from Akkadian _qanû_ “reed”: κάννα - Wiktionary


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> In fact it supports a relation between these words, like Arabic _qalam_ from Ancient Greek κάλαμος (kálamos, “reed”)...


That would only be the case if it were a late loan (Imperial Roman or Byzantine period). But this is not the case.


CyrusSH said:


> ... and Ancient Greek κᾰ́ννη (kánnē) from Akkadian _qanû_ “reed”: κάννα - Wiktionary


That is not the same word.


----------



## apmoy70

berndf said:


> The Hebrew text is about 300-400 year older than the Greek one and 1000-1100 years older than the Latin one.
> 
> Both, the Greek and the Latin, texts are translation of the Hebrew one.


There is not a single paragraph currently in existence from the ancient Tanakh, the  Masoretic text considered authoritative by the Protestant confessions and Modern Judaism, is at least 1000 years *younger* than the Septuagint. Even the Qumran caves scrolls agree more with the Septuagint than the Masoretic.


----------



## berndf

apmoy70 said:


> There is not a single paragraph currently in existence from the ancient Tanakh, the  Masoretic text considered authoritative by the Protestant confessions and Modern Judaism, is at least 1000 years *younger* than the Septuagint. Even the Qumran caves scrolls agree more with the Septuagint than the Masoretic.


There is also no original copy of the LXX either, nor of Plato's, Aristotle's, Caesar's or Cicero's works. We are all the time relying on passed down texts. The consonantic text of the Torah has been stable in the Jewish (as opposed to Samarian) tradition since the codification under Hezekiah. As far as the Torah is concerned, the Masoretic debates were about the Niqqud but not about the consonantic base text. Differences there are very small.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> There is also no original copy of the LXX either, nor of Plato's, Aristotle's, Caesar's or Cicero's works. We are all the time relying on passed down texts. The consonantic text of the Torah has been stable in the Jewish (as opposed to Samarian) tradition since the codification under Hezekiah. The Masoretic debates were about the Niqqud but not about the consonantic base text.


Logically, today there are Greek, Qumran, Samaritan, Aramaic-Pentateuch texts, thus Masoretic isn't "genuine" ever.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Logically, today there are Greek, Qumran, Samaritan, Aramaic-Pentateuch texts, thus Masoretic isn't "genuine" ever.


The original text of the Torah goes back to Hezekiah's codification (certainly based on even older text but they cannot be reconstructed) and that was in Hebrew in not on Aramaic, Greek or Latin. All those versions are translations from Hebrew. The Masoretic diacritics certainly don't reflect original 7th century BC pronunciation but reflect a contemporary pronunciation with heavily Aramaic influence. But that has nothing to do with the authenticity of original text. There was without a shadow of a doubt and uninterrupted transmission of the original Hebrew text and that is what the Masoretic text is based on.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> The original text of the Torah goes back to Hezekiah's codification (certainly based on even older text but they cannot be reconstructed) and that was in Hebrew in not on Aramaic, Greek or Latin. All those versions are translations from Hebrew. The Masoretic diacritics certainly don't reflect original 7th century BC pronunciation but reflect a contemporary pronunciation with heavily Aramaic influence. But that has nothing to do with the authenticity of original text. There was without a shadow of a doubt and uninterrupted transmission of the original Hebrew text and that is what the Masoretic text is based on.


Greek, Qumran, Samaritan, Aramaic-Pentateuch are their own original texts, independent from Hebrew Masoretic. Their all have crucial differences from Masoretic. By the way, Aramaic-Pentateuch is identical to the Greek-Pentateuch (Septuagint) about 95%, and differ from Hebrew Masoretic radically. And the Christian New Testament always quoted the Greek Bible not Hebrew Masoretic. Ancient Torah scrolls we have today back to 900 AC not earlier. Quran is also written at the same time like Hebrew Masoretic scrolls.


----------



## fdb

I think we have strayed very far from the topic of this thread. Otherwise I would be tempted to say a lot of things....


----------



## berndf

Unfortunately, the way the very question of this thread makes strange implications about the origin of the Masoretic text. We either have to remove the entire thread or straighten this up. So, please say a lot of things. If the discussion spins out of control we can still remove the thread.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Greek, Qumran, Samaritan, Aramaic-Pentateuch are their own original texts, independent from Hebrew Masoretic.


The Greek and Aramaic Pentateuchs are independent translations from Hebrew text variants but not original texts in them selves.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> The Greek and Aramaic Pentateuchs are independent translations from Hebrew text variants but not original texts in them selves.


The Greek Pentateuch and Aramaic Pentateuch are original texts, differ from much later Masoretic Hebrew. The Greek text is initial, but Aramaic was made from it.
As far as I can see Psalms, I see it was written Aramaic initially, but Greeks translated it later. The Christian New Testament always quoted Aramaic Psalms not any Hebrew ever.
Hebrew Psalms were written much much later, when Quran was composed. Quran and Hebrew Psalms are similar. Babylonian Talmud was composed to that period too.


----------



## inquisitiveness1

rushalaim said:


> The Greek Pentateuch and Aramaic Pentateuch are original texts, differ from much later Masoretic Hebrew. The Greek text is initial, but Aramaic was made from it.


Are you saying the Torah was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew?

If I am misunderstanding you and you do believe the Torah was originally written in Hebrew, what exactly are you saying the Greeks did first that the Hebrews did later?


----------



## rushalaim

inquisitiveness1 said:


> Are you saying the Torah was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew?


I can see that


----------



## inquisitiveness1

rushalaim said:


> I can see that


Why would Hebrews write down an oral tradition with Hebrew as the medium of propagation...in a language other than Hebrew? They had their own script and writing tradition, so why would they choose to record it by mentally translating it into Greek and then writing it down in Greek, before just writing down the tradition directly as Hebrew?


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> I can see that


Have you ever looked at the Qumran scrolls?


----------



## rushalaim

inquisitiveness1 said:


> Why would Hebrews write down an oral tradition with Hebrew as the medium of propagation...in a language other than Hebrew? They had their own script and writing tradition, so why would they choose to record it by mentally translating it into Greek and then writing it down in Greek, before just writing down the tradition directly as Hebrew?


There wasn't any "Hebrew" till 900 AC. Both Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds were written in a terrible mix of Canaan's dialect of Aramaic and Babylonian-Aramaic together. Later it became "Hebrew". The modern "Hebrew" was formed from Talmudic-Hebrew in 19th century in Lithuania. The script "Hebrew" uses today is Aramaic script indeed. Egypt had a huge Jewish population, who spoke Greek, and they composed Greek Pentateuch for themselves and Aramaic Pentateuch for Jews of the East.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> Have you ever looked at the Qumran scrolls?


Sure


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Sure


Do you really think they are all translations?


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> Do you really think they are all translations?


We cannot analize Qumran because its Pentateuch is incomplete and shows just fragments


----------



## berndf

That is a very strange argument. There is much more then enough text in these fragments to

Identify the texts,
Identify them as Hebrew and
Evaluate the degree of proximity to the different variants (LXX (Greek), Masoretic (Hebrew), and Samarian (Hebrew)).
When you say "Aramaic Bible" I assume you mean the Pešitta. That is late 3rd century AD, i.e. after Qumran.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> There is also no original copy of the LXX either, nor of Plato's, Aristotle's, Caesar's or Cicero's works. We are all the time relying on passed down texts. The consonantic text of the Torah has been stable in the Jewish (as opposed to Samarian) tradition since the codification under Hezekiah. As far as the Torah is concerned, the Masoretic debates were about the Niqqud but not about the consonantic base text. Differences there are very small.



There is a passage in the Talmud (Bava Batra 15a) claiming that King Hezekiah commisioned the redaction of Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, not that he was involved in the codification of the whole Bible. But even in this form the claim is hardly credible, not least because parts of Isaiah were clearly written during the reign of Cyrus, long after the time when Hezekiah is supposed to have lived.

The documents from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) contain a large number of fragments of the Hebrew Bible (unvocalised) and while these certainly agree to a large extent with what was later called the Masoretic text, there are significant variants not only in the spellings but also in the wording. The Qumran texts belong like the Greek LXX and the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch to the principal testimony for pre-Masoretic versions of the Bible.

Most scholars agree now that the (unvocalised) Masoretic text was canonised in the 1st century CE (Second Temple period) and that the three systems of vocalisation (Tiberian, Palestinian, Babylonian) were introduced in about the 10th century CE, or a bit earlier.

This means that we certainly have evidence for the existence of a Hebrew version of the Bible well before the beginning of the Christian era; it was certainly not translated from Greek to Hebrew. But for the Masoretic text with Tiberian vocalisation we need to wait about another millennium.


----------



## rushalaim

English KJB writes mistakes in Matthew 5:18 _"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one *tittle* shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
_
The Greek Matthew 5:18 uses κεραία _"horns"_ [above letters]. Jewish rabbis use Iranian word _"tag"_ (_"crown"_) to name those horns above Aramaic letters. That is kabbalistic decoration to attach any hint to words.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/bb/f4/92bbf4a19eb97a2ebbe5974f7f5e847f.gif

The Latin Matthew 5:18 uses _"apex"_ (_"tiara, crown"_) following to Jewish rabbis.

Apparently, Matthew 5:17-20 was written about 9th century AC and was inserted into a gospel later.


----------



## fdb

That is nonsense. Mt 5:18 and the parallel passage Lk 16:17 are in all the old manuscripts of the NT.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> English KJB writes mistakes in Matthew 5:18 _"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one *tittle* shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
> _
> The Greek Matthew 5:18 uses κεραία _"horns"_ [above letters]. Today Jewish rabbis uses Iranian word _"tag"_ (_"crown"_) to name those horns above Aramaic letters. That is kabbalistic decoration to attach any hint to words.
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/bb/f4/92bbf4a19eb97a2ebbe5974f7f5e847f.gif
> 
> The Latin Matthew 5:18 uses _"apex"_ (_"tiara, crown"_) following to Jewish rabbis.
> 
> Apparently, Matthew 5:17-20 was written about 9th century AC and inserted into a gospel later.



The term _apex_ was used as a diacritical mark above a vowel to mark it as long already in classical time (e.g. by Quintilian about 100AD). It had approximately the shape of a Greek _keraia_. _Apex_ translates _keraia_ directly. This has nothing to do with Hebrew _tagin_.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> The term _apex_ was used as a diacritical mark above a vowel to mark it as long already in classical time (e.g. by Quintilian about 100AD). It had approximately the shape of a Greek _keraia_. _Apex_ translates _keraia_ directly. This has nothing to do with Hebrew _tagin_.


Matthew 5:17-20 speaks about Pentateuch with Aramaic letters not Latin, isn't it? That passage is convincing a reader to keep Jewish law in details. But it looks out of neighbouring passages before and after. Many passages in gospels show that Jesus violated Jewish law intentionally (riping wheat on Sabbath, healing on Sabbath). Nor Samaritans nor Qumran nor Greek Septuagint didn't have any "tagin" (horns/crown) above letters ever. Greek got those diacritic signs above letters much later. And Aramaic letters got "tagin" from kabbalists just about 9th century AC


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Matthew 5:17-20 speaks about Pentateuch with Aramaic letters not Latin, isn't it? That passage is convincing a reader to keep Jewish law in details. But it looks out of neighbouring passages before and after. Many passages in gospels show that Jesus violated Jewish law intentionally (riping wheat on Sabbath, healing on Sabbath). Nor Samaritans nor Qumran nor Greek Septuagint didn't have any "tagin" (horns/crown) above letters ever. Greek got those diacritic signs above letters much later. And Aramaic letters got "tagin" from kabbalists just about 9th century AC


The gospel was written in Greek, neither in Aramaic, Hebrew or Latin and it uses Greek metaphors. At the time, the Greek system of diacritics had already been fully developed, including the keraia. A keraia is a small sign that look a like a modern accute accent and that is meant in the passage, viz. not the smallest bit should be changed, not even something so petty as a keraia. The etymology (little horn) is irrelevant. And this meaning of keraia as a diacritic sign was translated into Latin as apex, simply because a Latin apex is the sign that resembles a Greek keraia most.

All this has nothing to do with Aramic letters or Hebrew calligraphy.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> The gospel was written in Greek, neither in Aramaic, Hebrew or Latin and it uses Greek metaphors. At the time, the Greek system of diacritics had already been fully developed, including the keraia. A keraia is a small sign that look a like a modern accute accent and that is meant in the passage, viz. not the smallest bit should be changed, not even something so petty as a keraia. The etymology (little horn) is irrelevant. And this meaning of keraia as a diacritic sign was translated into Latin as apex, simply because a Latin apex is the sign that resembles a Greek keraia most.
> 
> All this has nothing to do with Aramic letters or Hebrew calligraphy.


Latin: Amen quippe dico vobis, donec transeat cælum et terra, *jota* unum aut unus *apex* non præteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant.
Greek: AMHNГAPΛEГΩYMINEΩΣANПAPEΛΘHOOYPANOΣKAIHГH*IΩTA*ENHMIA*KEPAIA*OYMHПAPEΛΘHAПOTOYNOMOYEΩΣANПANTAГENHTAI

Codex Alexandrinus - Wikipedia
Greek used large letters without any gaps with diphthongs without any final letters and many more differences from modern Greek. The meaning of that verse is the smallest Aramaic iota-letter and more smaller "horn" above the Aramaic iota-letter would not be abolished. Aramaic letter! Nor Greek nor Latin. The Greek I-letter isn't small at all like Aramaic י -letter.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/bb/f4/92bbf4a19eb97a2ebbe5974f7f5e847f.gif


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> The meaning of that verse is the smallest Aramaic iota-letter and more smaller "horn" above the Aramaic iota-letter would not be abolished. Aramaic letter! Nor Greek nor Latin. The Greek I-letter isn't small at all like Aramaic י -letter.


That is possible but we don't know what _iota_ and _keraia_ of the Greek text of gospel originally stood for. But _apex_ is certainly simply a translation of _keraia_ referring to the Greek sign.


rushalaim said:


> Greek used large letters without any gaps with diphthongs without any final letters and many more differences from modern Greek.


The oldest Greek text of the Bible ate indeed without accent marks. But the syste. If diacritics did already exist in the first century AD.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> That is possible but we don't know what _iota_ and _keraia_ of the Greek text of gospel originally stood for. But _apex_ is certainly simply a translation of _keraia_ referring to the Greek sign. The oldest Greek text of the Bible ate indeed without accent marks. But the syste. If diacritics did already exist in the first century AD.


Why don't we know? The Greek word "iota" means the Aramaic iota-letter *ιωθ* (Greek Psalms 118:73; KJV 119:73). The Greek word "keraia" means a "horn" [above the Aramaic iota-letter], to distinguish Aramaic iota-letter with a horn from the Aramaic waw-letter without any horns.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/bb/f4/92bbf4a19eb97a2ebbe5974f7f5e847f.gif

Though Qumran doesn't show any horns above Aramaic letters. Apparently, "horns" were appeared just under kabbalistic influence. It's strange, why Latin followed talmudic explanation of Iranian word "tag" ("crown") not Greek text's "horn"?
https://www.deadseascrollsfoundatio...ab_Written_in_Hebrew_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> The Greek word "keraia" means a "horn" [above the Aramaic iota-letter], to distinguish Aramaic iota-letter with a horn from the Aramaic waw-letter without any horns.


That is one of many theories but in the end we don't know a qotz  (thorn) may also be the little corner that distinguishes Kaph from Beth or many other things and we don't even know if keraia is really meant to translate qotz. But what we know is that a keraia was a diacritical mark in Greek and that apex is a plausible translation of keraia. You can certainly not derive such far reaching theories from the use of apex in the Vulgata as you did here:


rushalaim said:


> Apparently, Matthew 5:17-20 was written about 9th century AC and was inserted into a gospel later.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> That is one of many theories but in the end we don't know a qotz  (thorn) may also be the little corner that distinguishes Kaph from Beth or many other things and we don't even know if keraia is really meant to translate qotz. But what we know is that a keraia was a diacritical mark in Greek and that apex is a plausible translation of keraia. You can certainly not derive such far reaching theories from the use of apex in the Vulgata as you did here:


Greek Matthew 5:18 speaks about Aramaic iota-letter, not any Dalet-Reish or Beit-Kaph


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Greek Matthew 5:18 speaks about Aramaic iota-letter, not any Dalet-Reish or Beit-Kaph


Aramaic has no letter called _iota_, only Greek does.

Greek Matthew 5:18 speaks about _iota _and _keraia _and nothing else and those are Greek words and the basis of the Latin version. Its as simple as that. All speculations what Aramaic or Hebrew letters or signs this might refer to, interesting as they may be in themselves, are irrelevant for the explanation why the Vulgate uses the word _apex._


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> Aramaic has no letter called _iota_, only Greek does.
> 
> Greek Matthew 5:18 speaks about _iota _and _keraia _and nothing else and those are Greek words and the basis of the Latin version. Its as simple as that. All speculations what Aramaic or Hebrew letters or signs this might refer to, interesting as they may be in themselves, are irrelevant for the explanation why the Vulgate uses the word _apex._


Greek Psalms 118 show all Aramaic alphabet, the Aramaic iota-letter including (*ιωθ*).


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Greek Psalms 118 show all Aramaic alphabet, the Aramaic iota-letter including (*ιωθ*).


The name of the letter in the Aramaic and Hebrew alphabet is_ yod(h)_ or _yud(h)_ and not _iota_. _ιωθ _transcribes_ yod(h)_, Greek Matthew 5:18 reads _ιωτα _and that is the name of the Greek letter.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> The name of the letter in the Aramaic and Hebrew alphabet is_ yod(h)_ or _yud(h)_ and not _iota_. _ιωθ _transcribes_ yod(h)_, Greek Matthew 5:18 reads _ιωτα _and that is the name of the Greek letter.


Greek alphabet is naming its letters with Aramaic names: Alpha, Beta...Iota...


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Greek alphabet is naming its letters with Aramaic names: Alpha, Beta...Iota...


The Greek names of most (not all) letters are *derived *from Phoenician (not from Aramaic) but they are properly Greek. That is why the LXX uses _ιωθ _and not _ιωτα _to transcribe the Hebrew name of the letter.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> The Greek names of most (not all) letters are *derived *from Phoenician (not from Aramaic) but they are properly Greek. That is why the LXX uses _ιωθ _and not _ιωτα _to transcribe the Hebrew name of the letter.


Both Greek _ιωτα _and _ιωθ _is the Aramaic word, meaning a "hand"


----------



## fdb

At least in modern epigraphic literature, the Greek word keraia is used to describe the small serifs that appear at the top of some of the Hebrew/Aramaic letters from the Herodian period onwards.

For example here: A Thrice Repeated Ossuary Inscription from French Hill, Jerusalem on JSTOR


----------



## fdb

rushalaim said:


> Both Greek _ιωτα _and _ιωθ _is the Aramaic word, meaning a "hand"



The Old Aramaic word for hand is yad, Middle Aramaic īdā. There is no ō vowel in it.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Both Greek _ιωτα _and _ιωθ _is the Aramaic word, meaning a "hand"


The *origin *of both names is a word meaning "hand" in *Phoenician *(not Aramaic). The names themselves are different but both derived from Phoenician.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> At least in modern epigraphic literature, the Greek word keraia is used to describe the small serifs that appear at the top of some of the Hebrew/Aramaic letters from the Herodian period onwards.
> 
> For example here: A Thrice Repeated Ossuary Inscription from French Hill, Jerusalem on JSTOR


Here is an example from the late second temple period.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> The Greek names of most (not all) letters are *derived *from Phoenician (not from Aramaic) but they are properly Greek. That is why the LXX uses _ιωθ _and not _ιωτα _to transcribe the Hebrew name of the letter.


The alphabet in Greek Psalms 118 is later dialect. But the Greek alphabet names: Alpha, Beta is more older pronunciation


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> The alphabet in Greek Psalms 118 is later dialect. But the Greek alphabet names: Alpha, Beta is more older pronunciation


That is nonsense.


----------

