Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 882
» Latest member: bdizzcusasd3648
» Forum threads: 3,378
» Forum posts: 18,283

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 39 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 36 Guest(s)
Bing, Facebook, Google

Latest Threads
book of Hebrews: better f...
Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum
Last Post: DavidFord
7 hours ago
» Replies: 97
» Views: 5,767
_The Peshitta Holy Bible_...
Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum
Last Post: DavidFord
10-30-2019, 01:46 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 705
John 7:37: his belly? o...
Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum
Last Post: sestir
09-24-2019, 12:02 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 152
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Forum: General
Last Post: Paul Younan
06-25-2019, 03:39 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 635
Greek words in Peshitta
Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum
Last Post: Thirdwoe
06-14-2019, 07:33 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 263
New(er) Online Peshitta T...
Forum: General
Last Post: Luc Lefebvre
05-24-2019, 11:51 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 771
Matthew 18: 3 - "Turn" or...
Forum: Mistranslations
Last Post: Charles Wilson
05-23-2019, 03:38 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 777
Earliest known date attac...
Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum
Last Post: Andrej
05-22-2019, 08:33 PM
» Replies: 78
» Views: 24,489
New AENT Website
Forum: General
Last Post: Luc Lefebvre
05-07-2019, 03:52 PM
» Replies: 24
» Views: 4,488
Dave Bauscher's New Arama...
Forum: General
Last Post: Thirdwoe
04-15-2019, 10:44 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 564

  Matthew 26:17 before or on
Posted by: distazo - 04-16-2017, 06:57 PM - Forum: General - Replies (7)

Hi All,

What about the translation of Matthew 26:17 or Mark 14:12?
Markus 14:12

ܘܰܒ݂ܝܰܘܡܳܐ ܩܰܕ݂ܡܳܝܳܐ ܕ݁ܦ݂ܰܛܺܝܪܶܐ

It normally is translated as 'on the first day of the unleavened bread'
However, qadmoyo, is not an ordinal by definition, it also means 'before' (like in, standing before the king) or 'former' like in 'former days'.

So, would it be allowable / possible to translate it as on the day, before the unleavened bread?

However, that would ignore the 'daleth' prefix, genitive, of the 'unleavened bread'.

In revelation, we see the phrase: "On the first day of the week", there we see the word "ܘܰܒ݂ܝܰܘܡܳܐ ܕ݁ܚܰܕ݂ ܒ݁ܫܰܒ݁ܳܐ" where you see ܚܰܕ ((numeral) instead of qadam. However, in the NT, I cannot find enough idiom, which justifies my thoughts. 

Your thoughts, please Smile

Print this item

  Correct translation?
Posted by: Thirdwoe - 04-02-2017, 07:29 PM - Forum: General - Replies (8)

Matthew 13:55 "Wasn’t this the son of the carpenter,...."

Print this item

  adverbial rarity in Aramaic
Posted by: gregglaser - 02-04-2017, 03:39 PM - Forum: General - No Replies

One of the things that surprised me during my early studies of Aramaic was the rarity of pure adverbs. 

A pure adverb in Aramaic contains the suffix ܐܝܬ (“having”) because the noun “has” the quality of that verb.  See e.g., G. Kiraz, The New Syriac Primer (2007), p. 148 ("Adverbs in Syriac have the ending ܐܝܬ").

For example, there are only four of these ‘pure adverbs’* in the Crawford Codex of Revelation:

  • 4:8 ܚܙܕܪܢܐܝܬ (“surrounding”)
  • 11:8 ܪܘܚܢܐܝܬ (“spiritually”)
  • 19:10 ܝܬܝܪܐܝܬ (“abundantly”)
  • 21:16 ܡܪܒܥܐܝܬ (“four-square”)
  • * Note, that I’m excluding from this list the following proper nouns, even though they have a root adverbial quality: two instances of ܥܒܪܐܝܬ (“Hebrew”) and one instance of  ܐܪܡܐܝܬ(“Aramaic”).  I’m also omitting complex quasi-adverbial conjugations like 4:8 ܐܪܒܥܬܝܗܝܢ (“being a foursome”).  Lastly, I'm simplifying the subject of Aramaic adverbs.
Notably, professor John Gwynn in his grammatical analysis of the Crawford Codex never discusses this particular issue of adverbs.  Perhaps he didn’t know what deduction to make from their relative absence?  From my preliminary research, I’ve found adverbs are more common in Koine Greek

For example, in the Crawford Aramaic of Revelation 22:7 the word ܒܥܔܠ (“soon”) is an adjective (not an adverb).  But the Greek version of Revelation 22:7 has an adverb.

I suppose I would expect to see more adverbs in an Aramaic text if it were translated from another language.  Certainly in English, we usually write adverbs liberally Smile

Curious if anyone has studies to share on this topic?

I think this would be a good research project for an Aramaic student – ‘adverbial rarity’ in the context of split words is another branch on the tree of Aramaic primacy.

Print this item

  New Eastern Peshitta Interlinear
Posted by: Burning one - 11-16-2016, 08:38 PM - Forum: General - Replies (2)


For the last several years I've worked with the translator in counseling, editing, and some translation, as well as writing the Forward, to bring this to publication.  The Aramaic text and English translation included should be representative of the Eastern Aramaic in every single instance, with all Western-exclusive readings noted as they appear in the text.  The rest of the Eastern Peshitta will follow in similar interlinear format.  I'm not financially-invested or compensated, for whatever that is worth, but I am trying to get the word around for all those interested in the Peshitta text.  Below is further info from the publisher on the publication, with sample excerpts and links to purchase, if desired.

in HIM,


This work is a “Study Bible” and unique because it is the first true interlinear New Testament to combine both the John W. Etheridge Eastern Aramaic Peshitta in both Aramaic and Hebrew font compared to the Greek, word by word, in true interlinear form. This is the first time the Aramaic Peshitta has ever been in true interlinear form word by word in this complete form...please check out sample Pdf's. 

ORDERING LINK for both the Red Letter or Bold Black: 


Red Letter Pdf Sample:


Bold Black Pdf Sample:


The Messianic Aleph Tav Interlinear Scriptures (MATIS-NT) The GOSPELS, both Red Letter and Bold Black Editions are the most unique Interlinear Study Bibles of the New Testament in the world. This work is a “Study Bible” and unique because it is the first true interlinear New Testament to combine both the John W. Etheridge Eastern Aramaic Peshitta in both Aramaic and Hebrew font compared to the Greek, word by word, in true interlinear form. This is the first time the Aramaic Peshitta has ever been in true interlinear form word by word. The John W. Etheridge Eastern Aramaic Peshitta English translation was provided by Lars Lindgren and incorporates his personal notes and also, the Hebrew pronunciation of the Aramaic is unique and was created and provided by Lars Lindgren of http://Dukhrana.com/ and used with his permission…all of which comes under copyright protection.


Print this item

Posted by: theWatchman - 11-03-2016, 09:12 PM - Forum: General - Replies (1)


  Can anyone translate/provide the lyrics for this? I'm not sure if he is singing in the eastern Peshitta dialect or not?



Print this item

  Best Greek primacy argument I found, until now. John 14:9
Posted by: distazo - 10-05-2016, 01:10 PM - Forum: General - Replies (2)

Somebody pointed out to me a real argument which would point to Greek primacy. Smile Seriously,

Now, this one is really one argument. If they would have such as list, it would impress.

So here we go...
Etheridge: John 14:9
Jeshu saith to him, All this time have I been with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip?

Now, in the Aramaic, it says: "ܦ݁ܺܝܠܺܝܦ݁ܶܐ" (Philipé)

This is a Greek nominativus. Primacists say: "Well, if this would have been Aramaic, originally, it would say: ܦܝܠܝܦܘܣ

This also would be the case in Acts 1:1; 10:3; 26:4 and 1 timothy 6:20


Print this item

  The Strong Possibility That Lazar Wrote the Fourth Gospel
Posted by: gregglaser - 09-25-2016, 03:04 AM - Forum: General - Replies (13)

Here is an Aramaic bible study I'd like to share: The Strong Possibility That Lazar Wrote the Fourth Gospel -- Aramaic Peshitta Analysis

And here is my introduction to the paper...

Who wrote the fourth gospel?  Christian tradition says it was the apostle John, who was a fisherman from Galilee.  But if John was really the author, then why did he omit every event to which he is referred by name in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)? And why is the author uniquely named while in same boat with the “sons of Zebedee” in John 21? 
Questions like these have naturally prompted scholars to wonder ‘who else other than John’ is a candidate for authorship of the fourth gospel.  And Lazarus has always been the number one ‘runner-up’.

[Image: Lazar_pic.jpg]
The fourth gospel explicitly states (in John 21:20) that it was written by:
ܠܬܠܡܝܕܐ ܗܘ ܕܪܚܡ ܗܘܐ ܝܫܘܥ
(“the disciple whom Yahshua loved/befriended”)
This is an interesting description because ܠܥܙܪ (“Lazar” aka “Lazarus”) is uniquely singled out as ‘loved/befriended by Yahshua’ three times in John 11.  By contrast, the apostle John is not uniquely singled out with that description.
The problem though with claiming that Lazar was uniquely “loved/befriended” is that Yahshua clearly “loved/befriended” all of his disciples.  See e.g. John 13:1
ܘܐܚܒ ܠܕܝܠܗ ܕܒܗܢܐ ܥܠܡܐ ܘܥܕܡܐ ܠܚܪܬܐ ܐܚܒ ܐܢܘܢ
(“And he loved his own who were in this world, even until the end he loved them.”)
So the term “beloved disciple” is not sufficient by itself to identify Lazar.
Fortunately, the fourth gospel gives another important clue (many scholars even find this clue downright obvious to show Lazar wrote the fourth gospel) – it explicitly states about its author in John 21:23:
ܢܦܩܬ ܗܕܐ ܡܠܬܐ ܒܝܬ ܐܚܐ ܕܗܘ ܬܠܡܝܕܐ ܠܐ ܡܐܬ
 (“a rumor went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die.”) 
That’s a very helpful clue because Lazar was unique among the disciples in this one regard – only Lazar had been raised from the dead – so it makes sense that such a rumor (not dying again) would naturally spread about him uniquely (that is, how many times will Lazar die on earth? Once, twice?).  By contrast, there is no foundational background in the gospel that a rumor could begin that the apostle John would not die, or any other disciple other than Lazar.
[Image: Lazar_at_tomb.jpg]
And there’s more evidence too.  This paper will cover the following seven key points that suggest the fourth gospel was in fact written by Lazar:

1.      The Fourth Gospel explicitly identifies the author is “the disciple whom Yahshua loved/befriended”; and that Lazar is “loved/befriended” by Yahshua.
2.      The Banquet -- once the name Lazar exits the scene, curiously the title “the disciple whom Yahshua loved/befriended” appears on the scene
3.      Special focus on Bethany, the hometown of Lazar
4.      Temple connections
5.      Lazar at the cross
6.      Lazar in the Boat
7.      Lazar returns to a tomb, but hesitates to enter
Even the alleged ‘problem’ with the theory of Lazar authorship ultimately helps prove Lazar authorship.  That ‘problem’ is simply a curious question – why is Lazar identified by name in the beginning of the gospel, but identified as ‘the disciple whom Yahshua loved/befriended’ later in the gospel?  What major event happened to Lazar that would justify a name change?  We cannot assume the obvious answer: his resurrection from the dead, because Lazar is still called Lazar in John 12:3 (after he had been resurrected).  So, what happened between John 12:3 and John 13:23?  The answer appears to be the foot washing where Lazar was made a new man of the “cloth” (ܣܕܘܢܐ), the same word for “burial cloth” used in the fourth gospel to describe both Lazar’s own death (John 11:44) and the very moment (John 20:8) that Lazar first believed in Yahshua’s resurrection to life.

The conclusion of this paper is that Lazar probably wrote the fourth gospel.  And ultimately, the text alone allows debate, which is exactly the point – our calling as Christians is to enjoy the process of studying the gospel and asking thoughtful questions.  I think the Father routinely invites us to understand Him better through logic & study.  Isaiah 1:18, “’Come now, and let us reason together’, says Yahweh, ‘If your sins are as scarlet, they shall be white as snow. If they are red as crimson, as wool they shall be.’”  And when those methods bring us closer to Yahshua, mission accomplished.

[Image: Maryam_Martha_pic.jpg]

Print this item

  Law or Name? And how do we say this happend.
Posted by: Thirdwoe - 09-05-2016, 08:13 PM - Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum - Replies (2)

In Matthew 12:21 in the Peshitta, it reads:
ܘܒܫܡܗ ܥܡܡܐ ܢܣܒܪܘܢ

"And in His Name the Nations will hope."

This is a direct quote by the Apostle Matthew from Isaiah 42:4b

The Peshitta OT for Isaiah 42:4b, reads thus:

ܘܠܢܡܘܣܗ ܓܙܪ̈ܬܐ ܢܣ̈ܟܝܢ

"And unto His Law the Islands will look."

We know that the Peshitta OT is a translation of the Hebrew OT text.

The Hebrew OT text for Isaiah 42:4b, reads thus:

ולתורתו איים ייחלו
"unto His Law the Islands will wait."

The Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint), reads thus:

και επί τω ονόματι αυτού έθνη ελπιούσιν

"And upon His Name the Nations will hope."

Q: If The Apostle Matthew wasn't quoting from the Greek translation of the OT, then where did he get his quotaton from?

His quotation does not match either the Hebrew, or the Peshitta translation of the Hebrew OT for Isaiah 42:4.

It matches the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT for Isaiah 42:4.

Any help on this would be appreciated.


Print this item

  Ephesians 3:9
Posted by: Keith - 08-19-2016, 03:24 AM - Forum: General - Replies (2)

Hello all, 

My question regards the Aramaic of Ephesians 3:9. I have found a difference (with the help of a previous post by Larry Kelsey) in the ASV and its updated version (the uNAS) against the KJV and its updated version (the NKJV).
The ASV has: and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hidden in God who created all things;

The uNAS has: and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for the ages has been hidden in God who created all things;


The KJV has: And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid from God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
The NKJV has: and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
The Greek word for "administration" (in uNAS) and "dispensation" (in ASV) is οἰκονομία (oikonomia).
The Greek word for “fellowship” (in KJV) is a similar (but different Greek word) κοινωνία (koinonia).
This Greek word (οἰκονομία [oikonomia]) is also found in Ephesians 1:10, 3:2 in the KJV/NKJV as well as in both the ASV and the uNAS. Clearly, the context of Ephesians 1:10, 3:2, and indeed 3:9 requires the word "dispensation" not "fellowship". 
I wonder if "fellowship" in Ephesians 3:9 as found in Erasmus'/Stephanus' Greek is a mistranslation from the Aramaic word "dispensation". Do the words for "fellowship" and "dispensation" ("administration") look alike in Aramaic?

Print this item

  "Not fit to untie the <<Loop>> of his sandal..."
Posted by: Charles Wilson - 07-16-2016, 07:27 PM - Forum: General - Replies (3)

Hello everyone.

Someone began Posting on another site about John found in Mark.  Of course, in my blundering naivete, this was "Settled Science".
"I'll just get my notes, enlighten some people and..."

Uh-Oh!  There is a gap in the language at just this point.

Mark 1: 7 (RSV):

[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

John 1: 27, 30 (RSV):

[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."
[30] This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'

This is simply amazing to me.  In every sense of the word, Amazing!

For years, I've been looking at the Mishmarot Priesthood.  Look at 1 Chronicles 24 and "The House of Eleazar".  Eleazar and Ithamar provide 24 Groups for Temple Service.

1 Chronicles 24: 1 - 4, 7, 14  (RSV):

[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.
[3] With the help of Zadok of the sons of Elea'zar, and Ahim'elech of the sons of Ith'amar, David organized them according to the appointed duties in their service.
[4] Since more chief men were found among the sons of Elea'zar than among the sons of Ith'amar, they organized them under sixteen heads of fathers' houses of the sons of Elea'zar, and eight of the sons of Ith'amar...
[7] The first lot fell to Jehoi'arib, the second to Jedai'ah...
[14] the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer...

There are different orderings which may point to some Editing.  The Hasmoneans are assigned to Jehoiarib and the position of "Johoiarib" in 1 Chronicles 24 may indicate that the Hasmoneans wanted to be in the Leading Position (Eisenman and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered).  BTW, the sixteenth Group, "Immer", believes that the Hasmoneans came from them (Uzi Leibner, Settlements in Galilee...).  Excavations of the settlement of Jabnit and others show that this view is true.  There are real, in-your-hand artifacts attesting to the existence of these Groups in Galilee

It's tedious here, but the payoff should be worth it.

Immer is absolutely critical to understanding this.  They are the last of the House of Eleazar and they do have history behind them.  They were on Duty, after Bilgah, at the Passover of 4 BCE, where 3000 are murdered and Passover is cancelled.

Bilgah?  Oh...Yes:

"According to a Talmudic tradition preserved in "Halakot Gedolot" (ed. Hildesheimer, p. 631), Bilgah was assigned to the group which officiated on the second and sixth days of the Feast of Tabernacles. The priests, when entering upon their duties, received their share in the northern part of the Tabernacle, because this was near the seat of their activity. The section assigned to each division of the priesthood was furnished with an iron ring fastened to the floor, for the purpose of securing the animal designed for slaughter, and there were accordingly twenty-four openings in the wall where the knives used for slaughtering were kept. Bilgah alone received his share in the south, his ring being nailed down, and his wall-closet tightly sealed, as a punishment..." ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3298-bilgah )

Can you see where this is going?  

"After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.."
"After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me".

After John, of Bilgah, comes Jesus, of Immer.

The problem: It would be SOOOOO easy if "thong" meant "The loop of the sandal, either around the big toe or around the toes.  PERFECT!

Only: when you go to the Greek Interlinears, you find the word is "straps", which gets translated into "Thong" or "Latchet".

Quoting the Younan Interlinear of the 2 passages:

"...and he preach-would-and say-behold-comes after me-one who is more powerful-than I- he [who]-not-am worthy-I-to stoop-[and] loosen-the straps-of his sandals"      
"...this is-he-who after me-will come -yet-before me-is-that <I>-not-am worthy-I-to loosen-the straps-of his sandals..."

Vic Alexander: "I am not even worthy of untying the belts of his sandals..."
Steve Caruso: "...The thong of whose sandals..."

There seems to be an intermediate step that is missing.  The Word Play on "Thong/Loop/Strap" seems very important - Or perhaps I am asking too much.

Thank you all,


Print this item