02-12-2005, 05:37 AM
Greetings all. Thanks up front to Paul for a great Aramaic interlinear. I look forward to seeing it completed. I am finding the issue of Aramaic primacy very compelling, and quite interesting.
I am new to the actual language, though I have a fair knowledge of Hebrew which may help me in learning. At any rate, I have a question that is best answered by someone else who does know more about the language.
I am sure that everyone is aware of the debate over John 1:1 in the Greek texts, and what the anarthrous 'theos' is intended to convey. I would like to know if the Aramaic Peshitta contains the same type of ambiguity in the construct.
I see that Paul has translated "and that Miltha was God". I see that "God" in the first occurence is spelled the same as "God" in the second occurence, saving for what appears to be an alpha(aleph/alap?)-like character prefixed. I assume this is some form of conjunction like "and" since the translation translates "and God".
My question is, does this give a clear theological statement? I have heard the arguments from the Greek for "the word was the same God as it/he was with", or "the word is not the same God as it/he was with; but is equally God in status" or "the word was merely a god" or "simply godly/divine", etc.
I was wondering if the Aramaic helped to convey John's statement better so that the theological idea is not as ambiguous? Or does the same ambiguity also apply here?
Thanks.
EDIT: I hope that this doesn't violate the "no theological questions" rule. I realize that I am asking somewhat of a theological question- but, really, I am asking from the linguistic point of view, and not a mere dogmatic point of view.
I am new to the actual language, though I have a fair knowledge of Hebrew which may help me in learning. At any rate, I have a question that is best answered by someone else who does know more about the language.
I am sure that everyone is aware of the debate over John 1:1 in the Greek texts, and what the anarthrous 'theos' is intended to convey. I would like to know if the Aramaic Peshitta contains the same type of ambiguity in the construct.
I see that Paul has translated "and that Miltha was God". I see that "God" in the first occurence is spelled the same as "God" in the second occurence, saving for what appears to be an alpha(aleph/alap?)-like character prefixed. I assume this is some form of conjunction like "and" since the translation translates "and God".
My question is, does this give a clear theological statement? I have heard the arguments from the Greek for "the word was the same God as it/he was with", or "the word is not the same God as it/he was with; but is equally God in status" or "the word was merely a god" or "simply godly/divine", etc.
I was wondering if the Aramaic helped to convey John's statement better so that the theological idea is not as ambiguous? Or does the same ambiguity also apply here?
Thanks.
EDIT: I hope that this doesn't violate the "no theological questions" rule. I realize that I am asking somewhat of a theological question- but, really, I am asking from the linguistic point of view, and not a mere dogmatic point of view.