02-13-2005, 03:30 PM
Thanks for the welcome, Andrew. I will reserve a couple of seats at the Pony. You will recognize me as the rascally-looking man in the back corner.
Yes, after a bit of study, I realized that the a-like character is the Aramaic vav/waw (?) and is acting like the Hebrew conjunctive. I also noted that, as was said, there is no definite/indefinite article in the Aramaic language. I will have to get used to that.
Thanks for you reply, as well. Theologically speaking, we are on the same page as far as I can discern. Now, what you have said brings me to the core of the question concerning the understanding of the Aramaic.
I am trying to keep this as linguistic as is possible, since that is the real core of the question. To elaborate, I will side-track for a small moment to the post by Lector (though I would like to keep this focused on Aramaic) since his (apologies if Lector is her, but I am fairly certain of otherwise) post is helpful in clarifying my real question.
....
In Greek there is a definite article. Hence John 1:1, as the rest of the Greek version of the scriptures, uses 'ho theos' meaning 'the god', so as to distinguish 'theos' which can mean a 'god' or 'highly eminent thing'.
Now, this is not altogether true. As Chris had mentioned, the article is not always present even when the God being refered to is obviously "God". The first chapter of John contains anarthrous theos in many verses such as v.18 which clearly do not refer to 'a god' or such. The NWT commits this form of error (which was commented upon) by translating an anarthrous theos as "a god" when it refers to o logos/Miltha; but translating an anarthrous theos as "God" when it refers to the Father.
As was also mentioned, most scholars (I would dare to say, all Greek scholars) agree that "a god" is a terrible translation. This all centers around the fact that "theos" in the clause "theos en ho logos" is pre-copulative instead of post-cop. However, "a god" cannot be completely ruled out, yet it is so unlikely that no one (except a few of whom I question) will translate as "a god".
So, in the Greek, there can be a bit of debate, even though, for the most part, it is fairly clear. This is what I wondered about the Aramaic. Since I do not yet have the skill to answer the question for myself, I have to rely on others (hopefully, within a bit of time, I will not have to ask).
....
It really all depends on interpretations at he end of the day and it really is hard to divorce any dogma or philosophy from the interpretation.
Okay, is this true of the Aramaic? That is what I am asking, for the most part. In English I have, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". Now, there is no room for debate in that English sentence, yes?
Is the Aramaic cut and dried, like the English- or can John 1:1 actually be translated as, "and that Miltha was a god" or "and that Miltha was mighty" or such things?
Understand that I am not out to debate the subject. I am not really looking to talk about the Greek. All that I am really asking is something like, "Can Arians be Aramaic primacists?"
However, Aramaic has no definite article, which raises even more debate.
Does it? Or does the lack actually decrease the debate to certainty? That is a form of the question.
Please remember that I wanted to look at this from a purely linguistic point of view. Can two Aramaic speakers be divided on the actual meaning of this verse. Not the theological meaning, but the linguistic meaning. As, no two English speakers can debate the English of John 1:1. It can only mean one thing linguistically, even if theologically it may be debated.
Yes, after a bit of study, I realized that the a-like character is the Aramaic vav/waw (?) and is acting like the Hebrew conjunctive. I also noted that, as was said, there is no definite/indefinite article in the Aramaic language. I will have to get used to that.
Thanks for you reply, as well. Theologically speaking, we are on the same page as far as I can discern. Now, what you have said brings me to the core of the question concerning the understanding of the Aramaic.
I am trying to keep this as linguistic as is possible, since that is the real core of the question. To elaborate, I will side-track for a small moment to the post by Lector (though I would like to keep this focused on Aramaic) since his (apologies if Lector is her, but I am fairly certain of otherwise) post is helpful in clarifying my real question.
....
In Greek there is a definite article. Hence John 1:1, as the rest of the Greek version of the scriptures, uses 'ho theos' meaning 'the god', so as to distinguish 'theos' which can mean a 'god' or 'highly eminent thing'.
Now, this is not altogether true. As Chris had mentioned, the article is not always present even when the God being refered to is obviously "God". The first chapter of John contains anarthrous theos in many verses such as v.18 which clearly do not refer to 'a god' or such. The NWT commits this form of error (which was commented upon) by translating an anarthrous theos as "a god" when it refers to o logos/Miltha; but translating an anarthrous theos as "God" when it refers to the Father.
As was also mentioned, most scholars (I would dare to say, all Greek scholars) agree that "a god" is a terrible translation. This all centers around the fact that "theos" in the clause "theos en ho logos" is pre-copulative instead of post-cop. However, "a god" cannot be completely ruled out, yet it is so unlikely that no one (except a few of whom I question) will translate as "a god".
So, in the Greek, there can be a bit of debate, even though, for the most part, it is fairly clear. This is what I wondered about the Aramaic. Since I do not yet have the skill to answer the question for myself, I have to rely on others (hopefully, within a bit of time, I will not have to ask).
....
It really all depends on interpretations at he end of the day and it really is hard to divorce any dogma or philosophy from the interpretation.
Okay, is this true of the Aramaic? That is what I am asking, for the most part. In English I have, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". Now, there is no room for debate in that English sentence, yes?
Is the Aramaic cut and dried, like the English- or can John 1:1 actually be translated as, "and that Miltha was a god" or "and that Miltha was mighty" or such things?
Understand that I am not out to debate the subject. I am not really looking to talk about the Greek. All that I am really asking is something like, "Can Arians be Aramaic primacists?"
However, Aramaic has no definite article, which raises even more debate.
Does it? Or does the lack actually decrease the debate to certainty? That is a form of the question.
Please remember that I wanted to look at this from a purely linguistic point of view. Can two Aramaic speakers be divided on the actual meaning of this verse. Not the theological meaning, but the linguistic meaning. As, no two English speakers can debate the English of John 1:1. It can only mean one thing linguistically, even if theologically it may be debated.