Hi all,

A request to whoever is translating for the Interlinear. I would love to see Acts 18 translated

The Reason being is that in Acts 18:26 for the Alexandrian MMS it says Priscilla and Aquila. But in the Textus Receptus MMS it says Aquila and Priscilla . My point is "Why" in the Greek would one have a reversal of these names?? The Feminists run with this in the Alexandrian text to forward their agenda. She is mentioned first!!

What name order is in the Peshitta?

Thanks David

Q: If one were to transliterate  ܐܢܬܬܐ  Woman, from Aramaic into English, should it be  Anttha, or Atta?

There are lots of web forums about variants of Christianity, languages and holy scriptures with dwindling numbers of active users. They contain treasures of knowledge and were set up by an enthusiast when the Internet was young. After that important initiator has been carried away by circumstances of life (or death), one gets concerned that one day the geekostolic succession will get broken and there will be no laying on of admin privileges or domain name credentials which can ensure a continued operation of sites and software.

A friend who tried to register has contacted me. We both tried to contact admins but have received no answer yet.

Hitherto, the site and forum have been quite well maintained. If, however, continued service would start to appear challenging, I am sure some of us users could be solicited to make it survive in one form or another.

Hello everyone --

I keep following Trails.  Sestir was of great help with "'Eleazar' or 'Lazarus'?"  (still more to come on that one).
Hand in hand with this is "Jairus/Yoarash/Joazar":

Mark 5: 22 (RSV):

[22] Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet

Our highly esteemed Paul Younan has, in part:

"and came - a certain [man] - whose name [was] - Yoarash..."

For those who do not know, I am very big on the transition from Herod to Archelaus, seeing all sorts of things, even before my meds are stabilized .

Sooo, I find in Josephus:

Antiquities..., 17, 6, 4 and 17, 13, 1:

"But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead..."

AND:

"WHEN Archelaus was entered on his ethnarchy, and was come into Judea, he accused Joazar, the son of Boethus, of assisting the seditious, and took away the high priesthood from him, and put Eleazar his brother in his place..."

Now there is some interesting tension here.  Archelaus accuses Joazar of aiding those who took part in the Coup attempt of 4 BCE and removes him from the Position of High Priest.  This would make Joazar a perfect candidate for "Jairus" - in deed and in name.  There is a minor problem of when exactly this would have taken place - 4 BCE or 9 CE - but that's deep into an Analysis we don't have to go into right now.

Problem:

A..., 17, 9, 1:

"The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus, although he was mightily offended at their importunity


YIKES!  I have an idea that the Crowd is demanding a return to the Priesthood of, especially, the Hasmoneans and the rest of the Houses of Eleazar and Ithamar from the Temple, instead of the Appointed HP from the families of the Jerusalem Elite (The Hellenistic Court Ordering may play a part in this).

Do we have enough Political Evidence here to give support to "Yoarash" => "Joazar"  through "Jairus" in Early Mark?

I tend to think so but I believe I need more linguistic support and here, as elsewhere, the Greekies cannot help.

Help?

Thank you,

CW

In looking at GJohn 11 the other day, I came across an interesting Puzzle:

The Greekies have "Lazarus" which supposedly came to us from "Eleazar", as in 1 Chronicles 24:

[1] The divisions of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abi'hu, Elea'zar, and Ith'amar.
[2] But Nadab and Abi'hu died before their father, and had no children, so Elea'zar and Ith'amar became the priests.


Now, in looking at our esteemed Younan's Interlinear, we find:

John 11: 11 (Younan, in part):

These things | said Yeshua | and afterward | said | to them | *Lazar* | our friend...

Any direction here as to word development?  If it should read "Eleazar" why not change it?  Perhaps it doesn't need changing...

CW

Greetings , I am a very unlearned member. Maybe someone can clarify for me this area of scripture. In Acts 10: 28 The interlinear says "It is unlawful for a man Yehudean to associate with a man foreign who is not a son of his tribe".
My questions are these.
Does "Yehudean" mean Jews (a general term as I understand it for "son's" of Israel... Jews). If so, what is the "son of his tribe" that is referred to in the Interlinear. There are twelve "tribes" of Israel, Surely separation from the other 11 tribes is not meant here?.

I have a NT English translation (Janet Magiera version of the Peshitta). In this verse she uses the word "race". Not a good choice of word  in my opinion. Cornelius,  the Centurion and his associates are Gentiles and Simon Peter and his friends are Jews. All one race, are they not?. Is "race" being used as a modern idiom. Wrongly! Is there somewhere in the Tanakh that says Jews should not associate with anyone else other that the sons of Israel? And, What is the "understanding" of Aramaic to English for this verse??

Thanks David Welford

Great day Peshitta enthusiasts.  The Peshitta has a totally rare (and awkward) reading (or mistranslation?) in Acts 23:10, Acts 23:23, and Acts 23:31.  The Peshitta literally reads "Romans" in those verses, while all known Greek and Latin copies read "soldiers."

Isn't it awkward and redundant to read "Romans" in those passages, since everybody knows that the soldiers involved were Romans ?!?  Brooke Foss Westcott also uses this point to suggest that the Peshitta was "translated," stating the following.

"The Acts are more loosely translated (Wichelhaus, p. 86); but it is to be remembered that the text of the Acts presents more variations than any part of the New Testament. The Epistle to the Hebrews is probably the work  of a separate translator. (Wichelhaus, pp. 86 ff.)  4 That it was made at some place out of the Roman Empire is shewn in the translation of "stratiotai" by "Romans" in Acts xxiii. 23, 31. [Cf. Acts xxviii. 15: Appim Form.] But this is not the case in the Gospels, which, as I have conjectured, were translated earlier, and in Palestine. Cfi Wichelhaus, pp. 78 ff." (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 242).

Whoever created this website, "https://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/" just thought I'd let you know that the last word in John 5:27 (diyna) is improperly joined to the first word in John 5:28 "d'bareh".

Also, I noticed that among over half a dozen Aramaic translations of John 5:27-28, there is a huge divide on whether the clause ܕܰܒܪܶܗ ܗܽܘ ܕܶܝܢ ܕܐ݈ܢܳܫܳܐ should be translated "because he is the son of man" (like the Greek, at the end of John 5:27), or "But that he is the son of man..." at the start of John 5:28.

Shouldn't the word "deyn" be translated there?  Incidentally, for you Peshitta primacists reading this, Brooke Foss Westcott cited this very thing (it appears) to claim that the Peshitta was revised in the 4th century against Greek copies.  He wrote this:

"It is clear from the consideration of readings (e.g. John v. 27 f.) that the text of the Peshito underwent a decisive revision in the 4th century by comparison with the Antiochene Greek copies." (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 242).

How does the Peshitta read?  Does this work as a translation from the Aramaic?:

37-38. Now on the great day, which is the last (day) of the feast, Yeshua was standing and he cried out and said, 
"If a man thirsts, let him come to me!
And drink, anyone who believes in me!
As the Kethaba have said, 
"rivers of living water will flow from her midst."
['flow' is derived from the same root as Yordanan, which means 'Flowing.'-PY]
39. And he said this concerning the Rukha that they, those who believe in him,
were about to receive. 
For the Rukha was not yet given, 
because Yeshua was not yet glorified.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
For Luke 11:41, does this work as a translation from the Aramaic?:
Nevertheless, anything that you have, give it in righteousness,
and behold, everything will be clean to you.

If not, how about, 'make it righteous'?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NASB-1995) 11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (Magiera) 11A wife should learn in quietness with all submission 12for I do not allow a wife to teach nor to be presumptuous over the husband, but she should be at peace. 
 
1 Timothy 2:11-12 (https://theholyaramaicscriptures.weebly) 11The woman, in quietness, should be learning in all subjection. 12For, a woman to teach, I don’t permit, and not to be headstrong concerning the gabra {the man}, but rather, to be in silence.
 
I have several questions concerning these two verses.
 
1) Is the Aramaic for “woman” and “wife” (in each of the verses) the same word with different meanings depending on context?
--> In Magiera’s translation the “wife” (or “woman”) isn’t allowed to teach her “husband” or her "protective male" (possibly her father) but there does not appear to be any prohibition to her teaching in a church setting.
 
2) What is the correct phrase in verse 12, “exercise authority”, “be presumptuous”, or “headstrong”?
---> It seems to me that “authority” is probably an incorrect translation since 1 Timothy 6:16 uses another word than is used in 1 Timothy 2:12.
 
3) What is the correct noun in verse 12, “man”, “husband”, or “protective male”?
 
The implications of the correct meaning of these two verses can hardly be overstated. I am interested in what you guys think.
 
Keith