Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Aramaic Primacy in the East
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
It's just a Western thing! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->

Usually when someone mentions a Gentile, I think of someone like myself, a Roman, or a Greek. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, including Semitic Gentiles! The Amme that Paul went to included the Aramaye (Assyrians), Yonaye (Greeks), Romaye (Romans), and many more. Speaking of Aramaye (somewhat off topic), do you think that this word could be better translated as "Assyrians" instead of "Arameans", considering that the Assyrians prefer to be called by the former name?
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:It's just a Western thing! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->

Usually when someone mentions a Gentile, I think of someone like myself, a Roman, or a Greek. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, including Semitic Gentiles! The Amme that Paul went to included the Aramaye (Assyrians), Yonaye (Greeks), Romaye (Romans), and many more. Speaking of Aramaye (somewhat off topic), do you think that this word could be better translated as "Assyrians" instead of "Arameans", considering that the Assyrians prefer to be called by the former name?

Yes, indeed Abraham was a Semitic Gentile as well as his father, Terah, who was an idol-maker in Ur and in Harran. Then some Semitic Gentiles became Semitic non-Gentiles. Lots of us original Semitic Gentiles around today.

As to the name, Assyrians aren't Aramean by ethnicity, only by adopted language. Assyrians and Arameans are related, both being Semitic Gentiles. But their history and ethnic makeup is quite distinct.

To complicate matters: there are Aramaic-speaking Assyrian Jews. There are Arabic-speaking Assyrian Muslims. There are Aramaic-speaking Assyrian Muslims. There are Kurdish-speaking Assyrian Catholics. There are English-speaking Assyrian Atheists.

Assyrian = our ethnicity, Aramaic = our language (most of us who are Christian).

+Shamasha
Paul Younan Wrote:Yes, indeed Abraham was a Semitic Gentile as well as his father, Terah, who was an idol-maker in Ur and in Harran. Then some Semitic Gentiles became Semitic non-Gentiles. Lots of us original Semitic Gentiles around today.

I never have thought about it that way. Abraham and his seed were separated from the Gentiles after a certain time (possibly when Abraham was circumcised?). I find it interesting that Moses referred to Jacob/Israel as "wondering Aramean" (Deuteronomy 26:5). This would also mean that Abraham was an Aramean. The Assyrian people are the descendants of Abraham through his son Jokshan and his son Dedan (Genesis 25:1-3). I didn't notice that until last time I read Genesis, and when I did notice that I was rather shocked that the Assyrians were not only close relatives of the Israelites, but cousins. I originally thought that they were distant cousins through Shem (through either Ashur or Aram).

Paul Younan Wrote:As to the name, Assyrians aren't Aramean by ethnicity, only by adopted language. Assyrians and Arameans are related, both being Semitic Gentiles. But their history and ethnic makeup is quite distinct.

To complicate matters: there are Aramaic-speaking Assyrian Jews. There are Arabic-speaking Assyrian Muslims. There are Aramaic-speaking Assyrian Muslims. There are Kurdish-speaking Assyrian Catholics. There are English-speaking Assyrian Atheists.

Assyrian = our ethnicity, Aramaic = our language (most of us who are Christian).

Thank you for saying that. I always assumed that "Aramean" was simply another term used for Assyrians.
Although not quite on topic, I just wanted to share one finding which shows that there are small mistakes in the text, which I consider anyway, the best source for any NT translation in the human world.

This works for both the east and the western scripts.
So, this won't stir up the discussion which text is better east or west <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

There are 2 witnesses that show that John 6:19 in the Peshit(a)/(o) has a spell error.

* The Greek Text (talassa=sea)
* The Context in the peshitta (John 6:25)

What is the problem in John 6:19. Peshitta has yamta which -should- be translated as lake. However, verse 25 has yama, which means 'sea'. The Greek however, uses consistently the same word in 19 and 25.

Just in case some one would say: 'yamta goes either way'. Well, if it does, why do Murdock and Etheridge consistantly translate it as 'lake', and why does the context use 2 different words?

My claim that the Peshitta is not a faultless copy of the original text is thereby proven <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

A small theory: The Khabouris and the Peshitto text, are a copy of the same branch. Probably the origin text, was damaged at John 6:19 therefore, the copyists had to guess and the khabouris rarely differs from the Peshitto text but here it does.
I guess my parents were incorrect, then, when referring to Lake Michigan as "Yama d'Chicago" when we went swimming in summer?

Yama means a large body of water, not necessarily sea water. Yamtha in the feminine is for smaller bodies of water. It is subjective based on the speaker. Don't put too much trust in dictionaries made by non speakers.

Did you forget verse 22, referring to the very next day? Yamtha can refer to a bay or inlet. Then the word Yama can refer to the main body of water.

The Peshitta has more specificity. There's no reason to translate the same Greek word in two different ways in verses so close together. The Peshitta does not have a mistake here.

+Shamasha
Paul Younan Wrote:I guess my parents were incorrect, then, when referring to Lake Michigan as "Yama d'Chicago" when we went swimming in summer?


+Shamasha

Your parents were perfect, no doubt!
But I don't see why in just one verse, yamta is used, and the others (Verse 18) yama. The Greek makes this distiction exactly. In Luke especially, we see yamta translated as 'lake'.

When I speak, I could use synonymous words, in one sentence, but why write like that?
distazo Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:I guess my parents were incorrect, then, when referring to Lake Michigan as "Yama d'Chicago" when we went swimming in summer?


+Shamasha

Your parents were perfect, no doubt!
But I don't see why in just one verse, yamta is used, and the others (Verse 18) yama. The Greek makes this distiction exactly. In Luke especially, we see yamta translated as 'lake'.

When I speak, I could use synonymous words, in one sentence, but why write like that?

Shlama Akhi,

You're only comparing v. 19 with v. 25, without reference to the context or topography of the map. Did you forget about the word used in v. 18 ?

They started off in Tiberias (v.1)

The "yama" (v.18) was tumultuous on their way to Capernaum. It says that the disciples journeyed 25-thirty furlongs (about 4 miles by foot) (v.19). They saw Him walking on the yamtha (v 19) at Capernaum towards their boat which was docked at land (v.21).

The narrative clearly indicates that the body of water near Tiberias was a "yama" (large body of water), and the shallow bay near Capernaum where He walked on water was called "yamtha" (litle body of water.)

In fact, v.19 is the only place "yamtha" is used, curiously, the place where He walked on the water.

There's no way that an Aramaic translator from Greek will use one word in v.18 that is different from v.19, for no reason. I don't see your point, sorry. This is not any sort of mistake from a Greek source. In fact, it is more specific and accurate than the Greek.

+Shamasha

PS: and yes, my parents were brilliant in Aramaic.
Shamasha Paul, is Matthew 14:23-34 speaking of the same event, or a different one, and if the same, is there any distinction made there in Matthew's account, in the wording of "water", as is seen in the passage of John's account? It also looks like another form of the word is used there in Matthew for "water", why is that?

Is Jesus said to have walked on the water two times, or just once in the Gospel's?


Shlama,
Chuck
Thirdwoe Wrote:Shamasha Paul, is Matthew 14:23-34 speaking of the same event, or a different one, and if the same, is there any distinction made there in Matthew's account, in the wording of "water", as is seen in the passage of John's account? It also looks like another form of the word is used there in Matthew for "water", why is that?

Is Jesus said to have walked on the water two times, or just once in the Gospel's?


Shlama,
Chuck

Shlama Akhi,

It is the exact same event, including the feeding of the multitudes and the location. Matthew simply uses the term "water" ("maya") in Aramaic, whereas John used "Yama/Yamtha". Note that the GNT uses "sea" in all instances in both Matthew and John.

+Shamasha
Thirdwoe-

I believe that the events registered in the Gospels are speaking of the same moments with each giving a small clue as to intent.
One other use of "Bay" or "Inlet" comes to mind and it is in Acts.

Acts 27: 39 (Vic Alexander, In Part):

39. And as day came, they did not recognize the outline of the beach, except they gazed towards the land at a sea cove..."

RSV:

[39] Now when it was day, they did not recognize the land, but they noticed a bay with a beach...

I would be VERY interested in any expansion on the construction of this.

CW
Yea, I have always believed that they were the same event, and the surface of the text indicates this, but when you read Matthew's and Mark's account of the event, it seems to indicate that the water walking took place in the middle of the lake, or about 4 miles out, not near the shore or in the bay near a town.

In John 6, after they got into the Boat and headed back to shore, it says it was "in an hour" that it took, which seems to indicate the ship was moving maybe about 4 miles an hour. Rowing? Were they moving from the middle of the lake, or maybe more along the shore line?

When Shamasha Paul had pointed out above that it looks like John's account says that the water walking took place in more shallow water, near the town, and not in the deeper water out in the middle of the lake, it raised some questions in my mind, unless I read his comments wrong there.

.
Hi Paul,

If this works or is explainable I would accept. But I just as your parents, live near to a lake. There are 'bays' and the lake (as Dutch like it) has been enclosed by dykes to make dry land out of it. We all call it 'lake'. There is no difference. But when you go outside the big 'circle' we call it North-Sea.

How must I understand, in light of what you say the topography?

[Image: Route_Tiberias-Capernaum-Korazim-Tiberias.jpg]
Shlama Akhi Distazo,

Perhaps you live near a lake that does not have a dam? I asked you to inspect the topographical map of the lake, not a modern image of a reservoir that has modern shorelines typically expanded when a river is dammed. Today it is not a lake, it is a reservoir. In this case, the Degania Dam which was built in 1932, to control the largest fresh water supply in the country.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/bus...m-1.112716

In fact, there are many archaeological sites that are *underneath* the water today, due to the controlled flooding and expansion of the lake. In summary, the lake shoreline today looks nothing like what it looked like during biblical times.

Here is a map of how the lake shoreline looked in feature from 1595:

https://www.swaen.com/zoom.php?id=6645

+Shamasha
Hi Akh Paul,

Probably you are right and there is not a typo (yamta instead of yama). Excuse me that I'm not convinced yet.

When it's dark and they were in the middle of the lake, I cannot imagine that they in the darkness and storm, could see a over few miles distance Yeshu coming while he walked over water in a creek or bay.
distazo Wrote:Hi Akh Paul,

Probably you are right and there is not a typo (yamta instead of yama). Excuse me that I'm not convinced yet.

When it's dark and they were in the middle of the lake, I cannot imagine that they in the darkness and storm, could see a over few miles distance Yeshu coming while he walked over water in a creek or bay.

Who said they were in the "middle" of the lake? According to verse 21, they were quite near to their destination:

Quote:21 Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.

If the boat "immediately" (Aramaic: "beh b'shata" (at that very moment) reached the shore, then they could not have been in the "middle" of the lake.

It makes perfect sense to me that as they approached the shore (where the waves are typically the roughest), Jesus met them while walking on a smaller inlet or bay. In rough waters, they (experienced fishermen) would have sought out a bay for calmer water to anchor/tie their boat. Fishermen do not anchor their boats in rough waters in a large lake - they look for a secluded shoreline in a bay or inlet, where the waves are much calmer.

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.

I'm sorry, but again, you're not making any sense whatsoever.

+Shamasha
Pages: 1 2 3 4