John 1:1

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Thanks for the welcome, Andrew. I will reserve a couple of seats at the Pony. You will recognize me as the rascally-looking man in the back corner.

AGR:

Gotcha...I'll have Butterbur cook up some juicy steaks with some "imported ale", namely the Gaffer's home brew.

Yes, after a bit of study, I realized that the a-like character is the Aramaic vav/waw (?) and is acting like the Hebrew conjunctive. I also noted that, as was said, there is no definite/indefinite article in the Aramaic language. I will have to get used to that.

AGR:

Well let's be clear here. There is no OVERT definite article in Aramaic, like HA in Hebrew, but like everything else, context and experience can guide an Aramaic speaker to understanding whether indefinite or definite articles are intended. I will explain as we go further.

Thanks for you reply, as well. Theologically speaking, we are on the same page as far as I can discern. Now, what you have said brings me to the core of the question concerning the understanding of the Aramaic.

I am trying to keep this as linguistic as is possible, since that is the real core of the question. To elaborate, I will side-track for a small moment to the post by Lector (though I would like to keep this focused on Aramaic) since his (apologies if Lector is her, but I am fairly certain of otherwise) post is helpful in clarifying my real question.

AGR:

No problem. Fire away.

....

In Greek there is a definite article. Hence John 1:1, as the rest of the Greek version of the scriptures, uses 'ho theos' meaning 'the god', so as to distinguish 'theos' which can mean a 'god' or 'highly eminent thing'.

Now, this is not altogether true. As Chris had mentioned, the article is not always present even when the God being refered to is obviously "God". The first chapter of John contains anarthrous theos in many verses such as v.18 which clearly do not refer to 'a god' or such. The NWT commits this form of error (which was commented upon) by translating an anarthrous theos as "a god" when it refers to o logos/Miltha; but translating an anarthrous theos as "God" when it refers to the Father.

As was also mentioned, most scholars (I would dare to say, all Greek scholars) agree that "a god" is a terrible translation. This all centers around the fact that "theos" in the clause "theos en ho logos" is pre-copulative instead of post-cop. However, "a god" cannot be completely ruled out, yet it is so unlikely that no one (except a few of whom I question) will translate as "a god".

So, in the Greek, there can be a bit of debate, even though, for the most part, it is fairly clear. This is what I wondered about the Aramaic. Since I do not yet have the skill to answer the question for myself, I have to rely on others (hopefully, within a bit of time, I will not have to ask).

....

It really all depends on interpretations at he end of the day and it really is hard to divorce any dogma or philosophy from the interpretation.

Okay, is this true of the Aramaic? That is what I am asking, for the most part. In English I have, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". Now, there is no room for debate in that English sentence, yes?

AGR:

Actually, I don't even think it is true of the Greek. Let me show you why:

"Well said Teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that Elohim is one and there is no other Eloah but Him."

Mark 12:32

There is one MARYAH (YHWH), one faith and one immersion. One Elohim, Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all of us. But to everyone is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Messiah.

Ephesians 4:5-7

Now, I am using the Peshitta readings, but the Greek has no difference here. Therefore, this is not a linguistic issue at all, but rather looking for either Scripture to harmonize with a single message or to declare it a fraud because it is inconsistent. If we are only talking then about ONE ELOHIM, YHWH, then the reading of "a god"--by easy and conclusive defintion, becomes untenable in BOTH Greek AND Aramaic. If the Greek creates a slight confusion on the matter that's one thing, but the answer to that ambiguity is doing the necessary work to compare the totality of scriptural references on an issue, rather than take one verse out of context. Sometimes methodology trumps even langauge.

So to answer your question, there is NO DOUBT that either Greek or Aramaic should read THE (ONE) ELOHIM, and this is proven even more strongly in Aramaic John. Now let us continue.

Is the Aramaic cut and dried, like the English- or can John 1:1 actually be translated as, "and that Miltha was a god" or "and that Miltha was mighty" or such things?

Understand that I am not out to debate the subject. I am not really looking to talk about the Greek. All that I am really asking is something like, "Can Arians be Aramaic primacists?"

AGR:

Not if they insist scripture lines up with their heresy, no. Can they twist things to make it look otherwise to the uninitiated? Sure. The Arian heresy is only possible as a plausbile model from ambiguous Greek texts that always get twisted to their advantage, but even there, enough other facts line up the other way that the Greek can also be recovered from their cluthces. It's just harder to do with the Greek is all.

As for the rest of your question, it is totally cut and dried, like a barrel of Longbottom Leaf stored at Orthanc. "mighty ones" are AFTER the MILTHA. The MILTHA-Son (see Psalm 33:6) creates ALL by him and for him and through his hands (literally from the Aramaic). Y'shua, coming out from YHWH's mouth as the Word, precedes ALL ANGELS/MIGHTY ONES, and this is why he is called "firstborn of creation", again from both Greek and Aramaic traditions. But Aramaic makes a stronger case, because we know that when Hebrews says Y'shua had a name greater than the angels that such means he has YAH (YHWH) in his name, whereas all angels have the TITLE ONLY, EL (UriEL, RaphaEL, GabriEL, MichaEL, etc.). See also a parallel teaching in Philippians 2.

However, Aramaic has no definite article, which raises even more debate.

Does it? Or does the lack actually decrease the debate to certainty? That is a form of the question.

AGR:

Aramaic can misinterperted like any other language, if someone is either ignorant or determined enough to make that happen. But I believe that when Aramaic is taken at face value and looked at in the total flow of scriptural thought, that it is impossible to get this detail wrong.

Please remember that I wanted to look at this from a purely linguistic point of view. Can two Aramaic speakers be divided on the actual meaning of this verse. Not the theological meaning, but the linguistic meaning. As, no two English speakers can debate the English of John 1:1. It can only mean one thing linguistically, even if theologically it may be debated.

AGR:

Understood and appreciated Elassar, and my answer is NO, but with a caveat. Sometimes the meaning of Aramaic words is later perverted for political reasons, such as when the SOC changed the meaning of qnoma. But that is again a THEOLOGICAL decision that affects a linguistic take. In terms of the genuine boundaries of your question, I would have to again say NO, Alaha is God even as MARYAH is YHWH. There is no doubt on that, especially since Alaha is always in SINGULAR form, reflecting the Hebrew ELOAH.

Hope this helps!