Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Kyrios vs. Maryah
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Shlama all,

For your consideration: 1 Corinthians 12:3 from the GNT reads "no man can say 'Jesus is kyrios' except by the Holy Spirit." The word appears as Maryah (lord YHVH) in Peshitta.

The Greek version of this verse contradicts several instances in the gospel, here are some notable ones:

Mat. 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says unto me 'kyrios, kyrios' will enter the kingdom of heaven.... many will say unto me in that day, 'kyrios, kyrios...' and I will say unto them, 'I never knew you...'" Peshitta has Mari (my master).

How can Yeshua say to these people "I never knew you" if they have the Ruach ha Kodesh? But if they don't have the Holy Spirit, how are they able to call him Kyrios? This is a contradiction in the Greek, but not Aramaic.

Mat. 25:44-46 "and they shall answer him saying, 'Kyrios, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or naked or in prison, that we did not minister to you?' ... and these shall go away into everlasting punishment..." Peshitta has in this verse Maran (our master).

This is very clear. There were to be individuals on the day of judgment who were addressing Yeshua as "lord" but who would be sent into everlasting punishment. This is a direct contradiction of 1 Corinthians 12:3 "no man can say Jesus is lord except by the Holy Spirit."

Peshitta clarifies for us, even though these individuals are calling Yeshua "Mari" or "Maran", they are unable to call him Mar-YAH, because they do not have the Holy Spirit. A proper translation of this verse could read: "No man is able to say, Yeshua is YHVH, except by the Ruach haKodesh." Any lesser translation contradicts the greater testimony of the New Testament.

Shlama,
Brian
Excellent post, Brian!

But wait, wasn't Corinth in Greece? How could they understand an Aramaic epistle? I thought a letter to a geographic area must be written in the language of that area? This can't be so. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

+Shamasha
Good point Akhi Paul, oh well, every silly theory can't be a winner.
Hi Paul,
Was this written by you as sarcasm, tongue in cheek so to say?

Quote:But wait, wasn't Corinth in Greece? How could they understand an Aramaic epistle? I thought a letter to a geographic area must be written in the language of that area? This can't be so.
monalisa Wrote:Hi Paul,
Was this written by you as sarcasm, tongue in cheek so to say?

Quote:But wait, wasn't Corinth in Greece? How could they understand an Aramaic epistle? I thought a letter to a geographic area must be written in the language of that area? This can't be so.

Absolutely.
Paul,
I figured that you were being sarcastic. Why wouldn't Paul have written to the Corinthian church in Greek? We know that Paul could speak Greek, right?

God bless,
monalisa
Hi Mona Lisa,

monalisa Wrote:Why wouldn't Paul have written to the Corinthian church in Greek?

That's a valid question, but the question shouldn't necessarily be why he wouldn't have written to them in Greek, nor whether or not he could speak (or, write) Greek. I'm sure he was quite capable of doing both.

The question should be, who was the audience he was writing to in Corinth? Who were the first converts and leaders of that congregation? (Acts 18 answers that definitively) And why did he end his epistle with an Aramaic phrase that even the Greek NT today preserves intact ?

The fact that you attended an Aramaic-speaking Church in California, near the Mexican border, demonstrates that the Church in Corinth could also have been an Aramaic-speaking congregation, despite its location in a non-Aramaic speaking majority area. I'm sure that less than .0001 % of the San Diego area speaks Aramaic. But I guarantee you that the Patriarch and other bishops send epistles to that particular parish in Aramaic, not in English nor in Spanish. In fact, the congregations in India (which do not speak Aramaic at all) still receive the same epistles in Aramaic, and they are translated into the Indian vernacular by those few Indians who are learned in Aramaic.

The primary factor in what language a document is written in is the audience, not the geography. Otherwise, if the geography theory is taken to its logical conclusion, then Paul should have written his Epistle to the Romans in Latin ... right?

Most importantly, when you compare the GNT to the ANT, it is clear that the Greek is a translation of a Semitic source, in every single book (the Epistles of Paul included.)

+Shamasha
Now it makes sense "first to Jihudaya then to Aramaya"...