Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aramaic Primacy in the East
#46
Paul Younan Wrote:In any case, it's not up to *me* to convince you that the word "yamtha" is appropriate for the context. It is up to *you* to convince me why an Aramaic translator would translate the same Greek work differently in v.19 than he would in v.18, v.16, v.22, v.25, etc. You've given me no indication whatsoever that any sort of misreading of the Greek grammar caused the alleged "mistake" in the Aramaic.

Agreed. If it is the same context, why would a translator use more than one word to translate a Greek word? It is possible that a translator would do so of course, but not as likely.
Reply
#47
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:In any case, it's not up to *me* to convince you that the word "yamtha" is appropriate for the context. It is up to *you* to convince me why an Aramaic translator would translate the same Greek work differently in v.19 than he would in v.18, v.16, v.22, v.25, etc. You've given me no indication whatsoever that any sort of misreading of the Greek grammar caused the alleged "mistake" in the Aramaic.

Agreed. If it is the same context, why would a translator use more than one word to translate a Greek word? It is possible that a translator would do so of course, but not as likely.

Well, why would I suddenly promote Greek primacy friends? <!-- sConfusedtern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="Confusedtern:" title="Stern" /><!-- sConfusedtern: -->

What I meant that if the original Aramaic had the two words yamta and yama, the Greek SHOULD make the distinction as well.
Because, this is one-one-one (verbally) with Aramaic anyway. The Greek Luke has Yamta translated as lake and yama as sea.

What I meant, is that there is possibly a scribal error by adding a 'tau' to yama, which became 'yamta'.
Is it such a profanation to write such a thing? I tried to explain this because the original text could have been damaged since the Western Peshitto and the Eastern Peshitta differ in exact wording in John 6:19, a rare thing. (Have you compared it?)

But this is just an opinion. I don't believe any of todays manuscripts are faultless copies of the 1st century. Wasn't there some 'mar' from the East who said there was a faultless copy in Edessa (now lost)? Why did he say this?

@Paul, in the Netherlands, we have many types of 'water' we make a lot of distinction and we manage the water levels as well, both for drinking as for we live under sea level. But I just don't see how a topographic distinction would exist even in the original sea of Galilee. <!-- sCry --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cry.gif" alt="Cry" title="Crying" /><!-- sCry -->
Reply
#48
Is it the depth of the sea or the depth of the analysis that is wanting here? Imagine for a moment that Alha purposely inserted this question of ?yma? or ?ymTha? to illustrate and provide yet another study lesson to Yahshua's faithful. Notice the text in John 6:19 gives you two options of distances: 25 stadia or (au) 30 stadia. Paul Younan correctly emphasized that the ?tav? is added as a matter of perspective to ?yma?. And Egbert correctly emphasized that the different words raise a question on the face of the text. Both of your comments have added to my learning and interest in digging deeper into the Peshitta, and they support Peshitta primacy. So this post has been educational, thanks to you both.

Building on that, gematria (a = 1, b = 2 ? t = 22) is a mathematical way to analyze whether the tav in John 6:19 is harmonious with the surrounding text. Just like the text refers to 25 or 30 stadia, I see the evidence is most fruitful when both possibilities are considered (with or without the tav):

Evidence that the electromagnetic coupling constant (ECC) is embodied in John 6:18-20:
1/137 (ECC) x 385 (value of John 6:18) = 2.8102189781
1/137 (ECC) x 111 (value of Yahshua?s words in John 6:20) = 0.8102189781

1/137 (ECC) x 764 (value of John 6:19 with ?yma? spelling) = 5.57664234
1/137 (ECC) x 457 (value of second sentence in John 6:19 with ?ymTha? spelling) = 3.3357664234

660 (number of feet in a stadia) x 30 (stadia referenced in John 6:18) x 1/137 (ECC) = 144.525547445
1/137 x 1445 (value of John 6:18-6:20 with ?ymTha? spelling) = 10.5474452555

The peshitta is the best evidence of the original gospel. I like to trust that Yahshua and YHVH are instructing each faithful man personally to seek the word and find meaning to the perspective that is best for him in his present journey. Posts like these are opportunities to find and enjoy connections the deeper we look, including connections to one another. Your perspectives are valuable.
Reply
#49
Shlama Akhi Distazo,

My apologies for accusing you of advocating for Greek primacy. I thought that because the topic of this thread is Aramaic primacy, we would stay on that topic.

I now realize you are advocating for a possible "typo" or scribal error in the eastern text, with the inclusion of a taw by a scribe in the eastern tradition. I find that scenario unlikely. Firstly, because the immediately preceding verse lacks the taw. Secondly, because the OS (hardly an eastern text) has the taw in all verses, not just v.19. Thirdly, a scribe is far more likely to omit a letter during a copy error, than to include it. Finally, as in English, this particular body of water is referred to in Aramaic as both a lake and a sea. (In Luke's version of the story, Yamtha is used exclusively.)

As I stated in my previous post: Yama and Yamtha refer to size, not whether or not it's a salt or fresh body of water. It's not like sea or lake in English. Lake Michigan here in Chicago is called Yama in Aramaic, not because it's a sea but because of its size. A smaller lake by my home in the suburbs of Chicago is called Yamtha. The feminine is used for smaller lakes.

A medium sized body of water, like the Sea of Galilee, can be referred to as both Yama and Yamtha interchangeably. If you are out in the middle, you might call it Yama. If you are near to the shoreline or a bay, you might refer to it as Yamtha.

So whether you are advocating for a scribal error within the Aramaic transmission of the text, or whether someone advocates for a Greek primacy position .... This is a poor example of either.

+Shamasha
Reply
#50
Quote:I tried to explain this because the original text could have been damaged since the Western Peshitto and the Eastern Peshitta differ in exact wording in John 6:19, a rare thing. (Have you compared it?)

Egbert, where do you see a difference in the two texts?

Also MSS 14453 (5th century) has the same reading here as the Khabouris, which I see is the same word in the UBS critical text.
Reply
#51
Yes, indeed Abraham was a Semitic Gentile as well as his father, Terah, who was an idol-maker in Ur

Akhi Paul according to Genesis 14:13, why Abraham had been said 'Hebrew'?

Tawdee
Reply
#52
Bram Wrote:Yes, indeed Abraham was a Semitic Gentile as well as his father, Terah, who was an idol-maker in Ur

Akhi Paul according to Genesis 14:13, why Abraham had been said 'Hebrew'?

Tawdee

Because "Hebrew" means "Gypsy", it's the same connotation. It means someone who "crossed over", it means a "traveller."

Hebrew is not an ethnicity. Ethnically these are the same people as their blood relatives in Mesopotamia.

+Shamasha
Reply
#53
Shlama,


I would like to comment here, In Judaism we don't consider Abraham a Gentile obviously, but the term Gentile has gone over some evolution.

Firstly in the Tenakh the definite article usage of "HaGoyim" THE Nations typically denotes Gentiles. However, we see something interesting in the biblical text, Israel is called often a "Goy Kadosh" and "Goy Gadol" This is seen as different than Gentiles. We even get this in Sefer Devarim, 26:5

5. And you shall call out and say before the Lord, your God, "An Aramean [sought to] destroy my forefather, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there with a small number of people, and there, he became a great, mighty, and numerous nation.

What is interesting about this text is that the quote "An Aramean destroyed my forefather" can also be read as my "my [fore]father was a wandering Aramean." In fact in the Haggadah for Pesach we read it this way, there is even debate between the Rabbis about how it is read. This article explains why:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Passover/The_Seder/Haggadah/An_Aramean_Destroyed_My_Father.shtml?p=1">http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holiday ... .shtml?p=1</a><!-- m -->

However, here we also see Israel being established as a new nation, read: new ethnicity, peoplehood, whatever western category you would like to use. and the word used here for a great and mighty nation is "Goy Gadol."

I have noticed in Peshitta that the term "Ammo", with two mems, is used in exchange for the word Goy[im]. And the Hebrew cognate Am[o] is used for "people." So while, yes these are generic terms, within biblical literature, "The Nations" have a negative usage they are likened to Dogs in Tehilim 59:7-9 and Matti 15:26, and are considered different from Israel and the Jewish people. Yeshua even picks up on some of this language and calls a Gentile woman a dog! Paul is the Sheliach to "The nations." Paul being a student of Rabban Gamaliel, knew full well the distinctions and differences. In fact in the Biblical Text Israel is called an "Am Segulah" a chosen and peculiar treasure to Hashem. This May help explain what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11.

It is part of the prophetic mystery, hope, expectation and messianic age for the nations to be reconciled with Israel, and Israel was to be a Light to the Nations Or L'Goyim (Zechariah 14 and Yeshiahu 49:6) , That was the message, Abraham become a new nation created a peoplehood that would be a light to the nations and would brith new souls which is suggested by him "Making souls at Padam haram." To blur that distinction is to miss the message of the Tenakh, K'tava Kadisha, and Besorah. Just food for thought.
Reply
#54
Quote:Because "Hebrew" means "Gypsy", it's the same connotation. It means someone who "crossed over", it means a "traveller."

Hebrew is not an ethnicity. Ethnically these are the same people as their blood relatives in Mesopotamia.

+Shamasha

Tawdee, but if you wouldn't mind, please let me know if any dictionary or reference book that Hebrew is not an ethnicity at this case.
Reply
#55
ZechariahBY Wrote:Shlama,


I would like to comment here, In Judaism we don't consider Abraham a Gentile obviously, but the term Gentile has gone over some evolution.

Firstly in the Tenakh the definite article usage of "HaGoyim" THE Nations typically denotes Gentiles. However, we see something interesting in the biblical text, Israel is called often a "Goy Kadosh" and "Goy Gadol" This is seen as different than Gentiles. We even get this in Sefer Devarim, 26:5

5. And you shall call out and say before the Lord, your God, "An Aramean [sought to] destroy my forefather, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there with a small number of people, and there, he became a great, mighty, and numerous nation.

What is interesting about this text is that the quote "An Aramean destroyed my forefather" can also be read as my "my [fore]father was a wandering Aramean." In fact in the Haggadah for Pesach we read it this way, there is even debate between the Rabbis about how it is read. This article explains why:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Passover/The_Seder/Haggadah/An_Aramean_Destroyed_My_Father.shtml?p=1">http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holiday ... .shtml?p=1</a><!-- m -->

However, here we also see Israel being established as a new nation, read: new ethnicity, peoplehood, whatever western category you would like to use. and the word used here for a great and mighty nation is "Goy Gadol."

I have noticed in Peshitta that the term "Ammo", with two mems, is used in exchange for the word Goy[im]. And the Hebrew cognate Am[o] is used for "people." So while, yes these are generic terms, within biblical literature, "The Nations" have a negative usage they are likened to Dogs in Tehilim 59:7-9 and Matti 15:26, and are considered different from Israel and the Jewish people. Yeshua even picks up on some of this language and calls a Gentile woman a dog! Paul is the Sheliach to "The nations." Paul being a student of Rabban Gamaliel, knew full well the distinctions and differences. In fact in the Biblical Text Israel is called an "Am Segulah" a chosen and peculiar treasure to Hashem. This May help explain what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11.

It is part of the prophetic mystery, hope, expectation and messianic age for the nations to be reconciled with Israel, and Israel was to be a Light to the Nations Or L'Goyim (Zechariah 14 and Yeshiahu 49:6) , That was the message, Abraham become a new nation created a peoplehood that would be a light to the nations and would brith new souls which is suggested by him "Making souls at Padam haram." To blur that distinction is to miss the message of the Tenakh, K'tava Kadisha, and Besorah. Just food for thought.

todda rabbah
Reply
#56
ZechariahBY Wrote:Shlama,


I would like to comment here, In Judaism

I have noticed in Peshitta that the term "Ammo", with two mems, is used in exchange for the word Goy[im]. And the Hebrew cognate Am[o] is used for "people." So while, yes these are generic terms, within biblical literature, "The Nations" have a negative usage they are likened to Dogs in Tehilim 59:7-9 and Matti 15:26, and are considered different from Israel and the Jewish people. Yeshua even picks up on some of this language and calls a Gentile woman a dog! Paul is the Sheliach to "The nations." Paul being a student of Rabban Gamaliel, knew full well the distinctions and differences. In fact in the Biblical Text Israel is called an "Am Segulah" a chosen and peculiar treasure to Hashem. This May help explain what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11.

It is part of the prophetic mystery, hope, expectation and messianic age for the nations to be reconciled with Israel, and Israel was to be a Light to the Nations Or L'Goyim (Zechariah 14 and Yeshiahu 49:6) , That was the message, Abraham become a new nation created a peoplehood that would be a light to the nations and would brith new souls which is suggested by him "Making souls at Padam haram." To blur that distinction is to miss the message of the Tenakh, K'tava Kadisha, and Besorah. Just food for thought.

So in the case of the woman he reconsiled her and healed her daughter. Showing he didn't believe her to be a dog but rather someone worthy of a blessing. He gave an example to the desciples that she was not cast off and therefore when they where scattered they were to show the same compassion.

From another perspective when he said destroy this temple and in 3 days I will build it up. Each day is as a thousand years. As the nations came in and tore down the temple by merging with paganism. It is interesting that now is the 3rd day and there is an explosion of those studying the original writings and turning back to the old paths to live in them. So the nations are seeing that many things they were taught are not supported by scripture and neither did yahweh command them to do that at any time.

Because of this it is a light to the nations and preparing the way for both to have a pure worship based on the word alone.

I find this a very exciting time to be alive. At time when paganism will no longer be exalted as truth above the express written word of yahweh. A time when the true followers will be filled with the divine breath\mind\character.

shalom
tobiyah
Reply
#57
I have come to the conclusion with no education in this field but common sense and much reading that there is/was no Aramaic Primacy. There were Greek Scriptures which were taken into Syriac lands and communities and these Greek Scriptures were revised to meet the needs of these communities due to their culture and language. There is nothng wrong with that approach at that time.  After much searching on the Internet and money spent trying to find the legitimacy of this ongoing argument it has come to an end. Most of all I have to thank the Introduction in the Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation of Mark put out by Gorgias Press which put the finality on this for me.

Good-bye to everyone here on this forum and thank you to everyone who helped me with their many questions and insights posted here. Do take care.

TruthFinder, over and out.
Reply
#58
(04-03-2022, 10:17 PM)TruthFinder Wrote: I have come to the conclusion with no education in this field but common sense and much reading that there is/was no Aramaic Primacy. There were Greek Scriptures which were taken into Syriac lands and communities and these Greek Scriptures were revised to meet the needs of these communities due to their culture and language. There is nothng wrong with that approach at that time.  After much searching on the Internet and money spent trying to find the legitimacy of this ongoing argument it has come to an end. Most of all I have to thank the Introduction in the Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation of Mark put out by Gorgias Press which put the finality on this for me.

Good-bye to everyone here on this forum and thank you to everyone who helped me with their many questions and insights posted here. Do take care.

TruthFinder, over and out.

The biggest issues I have with the Peshitta is that the Eastern and Western texts reflect the Christology of the regions (mainly, one nature VS two nature) in their unique readings from the Greek. This is, like you say, revisions to meet the needs of these communities. Nonetheless, I find them to be extremely reliable witnesses to a text used by the church since some of the earliest beginnings. 

The text of Gorgias Press is valuable academically, but I worry that, like the RSV, it suffers from theological liberalism and thus approaches the text with doubt and a critical eye. I will still likely buy the completed OT and NT copy, especially for the sake of having the extended Canon of the OT that is missing from Lamsa and Bauscher, but we nonetheless will need an edition put out by the Assyrian Church of the East that reflects the Orthodox, Apostolic faith of the Church.

As for the original discussion that began a decade ago now, the following is a relevant article showing some of the strongest Aramaic primacy in the East within the modern era,

"What Language Did God Speak?

Christians, Hebrews and Moslems alike hold the Bible to be the Word of God. In what language was this word spoken?

The question is vital. No one language can be translated exactly into any other. Some shade of meaning invariably is lost. Since God spoke, we should know the language in which He spoke, that we may get the full significance of His Word. All Bible-based faiths -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- believe this revelation began with Abraham. In speaking to Abraham, God must have used a language Abraham understood. What was that language?

On this point, there is no shadow of doubt. Abraham spoke Aramaic -- the language of Aram. Aram is that land now referred to as Iraq and Syria. The Hebrew calls it by two names -- Aram-Naharaim, or Aram of the Rivers, and Padan-Aram, or the Plain of Aram. In Greek, Abraham's birthplace is called Mesopotamia -- Between the Rivers referring to the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. All over that valley, the language was Aramaic. Abraham spoke Aramaic. Since he understood what God said, God must also have spoken Aramaic.

Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. In their own tent, his family must have spoken in the native language. Isaac married Rebekah, who also came from Aram and therefore spoke Aramaic. Their sons, Jacob and Esau also spoke that language.
When Jacob sought a wife, he went back to Aram and married two cousins -- Leah and Rachel. All his sons, with the exception of Benjamin, were born in Aram, in the midst of a population that spoke only Aramaic. Therefore the sons of Jacob the "children of Israel" - also spoke Aramaic. Even in our English bibles, there are fragments of this language -- like "Jegar Sahadutha", the Pile of Witness, referring to the heap of stones Laban and Jacob made to seal their covenant of peace.


These descendants of Jacob moved into Egypt and lived there for 430 years. All this time they were in constant communication with Aram, for the province of Goshen, where they lived, is the region where caravans from Babylon entered Egypt. Their Aramaic was mixed with some Egyptian words. Undoubtedly when they wandered in the desert, they intermarried with Arabian tribes. Their Aramaic was corrupted into Hebrew. But when the Hebrews were carried into captivity into Aram, they went back to therefore the speech of their forefathers. The later prophets spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. At the time of Jesus, the common people understood only Aramaic. The Hebrew of the scriptures had to be interpreted into that common dialect.. Aramaic was the common language of the trade of the world. Merchants in Babylon and in Egypt used it for their bills of lading and their statements of accounts. The camel drivers spoke it. In every village along their routes, the people spoke it as well, in Nazareth, too. In that language, Jesus and his apostles spoke. It is written, "The Common People heard him gladly." Therefore He spoke Aramaic, for that was the only language the common people understood.

For a long time, scholars thought the New Testament was written in Greek. That has been shown to be an absurd error. The Hebrews of the age of Jesus hated and despised the Greeks. They wrote to one another in the language they all understood, the language of Abraham and of Jesus - Aramaic. When the Roman emperors found the Christian church was the dominant force in their empire, they took it over and ordered the Gospels to be translated into Greek, Translation from one language into another is never quite accurate. Therefore to know what God's words implied it is necessary to know that glorious language 
-- Aramaic. That is the task of the Church of the East. We must revive the knowledge of Aramaic, God's language. In every church and community, there must be schools to study the Lord's Language. Let that be our goal for 1951.

Article was written by the late Mar Shimun XXIII Eshai in the book "The light of the East" "
ܠܐ ܒܥܒܕܐ ܕܙܕܝܩܘܬܐ ܕܥܒܕܢ ܐܠܐ ܒܪܚܡܘܗܝ ܕܝܠܗ ܐܚܝܢ ܒܣܚܬܐ ܕܡܘܠܕܐ ܕܡܢ ܕܪܝܫ ܘܒܚܘܕܬܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)