Yah, contracted from YHWH--In the Peshitta?

[gregglaser]

Erm... /ya/ is simply very common in Aramaic. It ends every gentillic, it ends every masculine emphatic plural in older dialects, it begins certain Aphel verbal forms, it appears all over the place.

Those "examples" you cite aren't the kind of wordplay that was understood as wordplay in ancient times. If we were discussing rootplay or some sort of acrostic that would be one thing, but this is simply cherry-picked from a random distribution, and some of them don't even represent the sound /ya/.

Also -- and I must preface this in that it is a pet peeve of mine -- there is zero documentary evidence that Jesus' name was "Yahshua" (or Yahushua or Yahusha or several other variants that some insist upon). In Hebrew it was Yehoshua in Aramaic it was Yeshua or Y'shua (the apostrophe representing shwa). There was no open vowel in the initial syllable. To do so would violate very well-studied and established conventions.

Peace,
-Steve

Yes, thank you, I think your point is the obvious one, and I hope I didn?t overstate mine to suggest those potential wordplays were grandiose on the textual face. To the contrary, they are subtle, like the smallest of the 22 letters is subtle, often even overlooked (like the famous yod-shin combination in Estrangelo). But if Y?Shua or an apostle is discussing the Father?s name in the gospel, and they are speaking the sound ?yah?, might that be something that perks your ears? A sign of something deeper? In the Hebrew tradition, every letter is meaningful in the writing of a faithful witness.

But you?re right that ?ya? and ?yh? are common in the language and in the gospel, which means I?ll have a challenge to prove anything here beyond the obvious. Let?s begin with every instance in the first chapter of Mark where the prefix or suffix ?yh? or ?ya? appears:

• ? 1:2 ? baShEaya nbya (?in Isaiah the prophet?)
  ? 1:5 ? dyhud (?of Judea?)
  ? 1:6 ? ayThyh (?having (plural)?)
  ? 1:7 ? mny hu (?from me, he?)
  ? 1:8 ? bmya hu (?in water, he?)
  ? 1:10 ? mya (?water?)
  ? 1:10 ? Shmya (?heaven?)
  ? 1:11 ? Shmya (?heaven?)
  ? 1:22 ? spryhun (?their scribes)
  ? 1:24 ? nTsrya (?Nazarene?)
  ? 1:27 ? hy hda (?is this?)
  ? 1:30 ? rmya (?ill?)
  ? 1:30 ? Ealya (?upon her?)
  ? 1:38 ? lqurya (?to the villages?)
  ? 1:45 ? glyayTh (?openly?)

And here are the examples in order for Mark Chapter 2, ?Many - paralytic ? paralytic ? paralytic - to the paralytic - to the paralytic ? many - and sinners - many ? sinners - and sinners - the physician - to the sinners - the old - Lord - gives.? On the face of things, we only see lots of examples. But one might also wonder about the possibility of a message between the lines, especially given all the possible interpretations.

Here?s the next chapter, Mark 3 in order, ?the sick - against him so that ? his disciples go ? many ? they will press in on him ? many ? will reveal him ? the sick ? the zealot ? and Judas ? his possessions unless ?sons of mankind.?

Mark 4 in order, ?my truth being ? large ? gives ? and gives ? they asked him ? give ? to those outside ? their sins ? persecutions ? worries ? become ? and they give ? in secret ? will be given ? in the night ?death ? the sign ? will be his blood ? will compare him ? small ? and becomes - silver coins ? like this.?

Some see meaning; others see nothing. Some, like myself, see possibility.

Or what about gematria? I would encourage taking a moment to really ponder the examples from my original post in their context? John 17:11 is a nice one ? ?Holy Father, guard them in your name, hu d yhbTh ly (?it that you gave to me?).? Aramaic is the language, the first face with which we interact. Some also see another face - the letters' numbers point to YHVH Alha? dyh = 19 (significant because aleph (1) + lamed (12) + hey (5) + aleph (1) = 19 (Alha)). Then bThly = 46 (significant because in base 10 reduction math both answers are 10 (as in the 10th letter yod)). It?s subtle -- but you can find the pattern repeated in the gospel-- start by noticing all the yod-pairings when Yahshua speaks of the Father's name and his own name: one for the Father, and one for Y'Shua. Which connections are just coincidences? Shall I prepare a statistical analysis? I think we see what we?re given to see in our languages, facially and otherwise.

The possibility of 'ah' in Y'Shua troubles a man? Interesting pet peeve man <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s --> The letters of the messiah?s name are so meaningful and dynamic, individually and combined, yod-shin-vav-ayin. For starters his name equals 53, just like mShyKha=53. Some say the ayin is silent in Y'Shua (feel the importance of that silent last letter in this moment - breathe the sounds of all four letters, breathe in ?eee?, breathe out ?shhh?, breathe in ?whooo?, and then... you're smiling again, yes you). It?s also okay to pronounce the ayin (awesome for its elevating power in spoken word). Some say the sound between yod and shin was ?ah? like Yah and others say ?eh? like yes! I prefer personally to speak in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. I think you quipped (Socratic-method?) that there is ?zero documentary evidence? for ?ah?. Off limits according to ?well- studied and established conventions?? I wonder about that man, and I appreciate the question. I find from Hebrew & Aramaic bible study (and logic), that it is quite defensible to speak the sound Yah in yShuEa. It comes naturally from a strong yod pronunciation, a yod independently measurable before the shin. The 'ah' sound was also spoken consistently in Hebrew names in honor of Yah. See for example the names in Yahshua?s lineage in Matthew 1 (e.g., abya).

If a tradition infallibly prohibits emphasizing a strong yod pronunciation in the name Y?Shua, is the tradition sound? Or, have we learned from historical precedents where a ruling tradition prevents people from speaking the holy name?

Or, imagine a little boy approaches the messiah Y'Shua and pronounces his name with an ?ah? sound, just like he learned from his parents to pronounce at times a strong ?yod?, an independent letter. Would the messiah accept the honor or say, tlya la Khd kThybTha Khua Shmy Eam zEaq hna (?Boy, not one written thing shows my name with this sound.?)

Or, consider the example of king dvyd (?David?). Can the suffix of his name dvyd be pronounced ?yod? ? yes, it can. And it is meaningful to do so if your language (such as math and Hebrew) makes it meaningful. For example, dv = 10; and yd is the sound of the 10th letter. So here is another subtle yod-yod connection in David?s name, a little trail marker on the road for those believed Yah?s servant David worked Yah?s will on earth.

Or, who has spoken the 22-letters while measuring their waveform shapes (both primary and reflective), and then mapped these geometries in 3-d to create a working model for harmonic pronunciation? Who will grow the science of linguistics beyond books and traditions ? when will it blossom as the study of biological wave harmonies in cultural networks?

This debate about pronunciation of our messiah?s name is naturally fun but not realistically provable by text alone, ?ah? or ?eh', or even 'ee'. I think we do well to guard first the literal text as written, and then whatever we measure is measured back to us. John 14:9-10, ?Philip said to him, our lord, show us the Father and it will satisfy us. Y?Shua said to him, ?All this time I am with you and you do not know me Philip. Whoever sees me sees the Father. And you, how do you say ?show us the Father?? Do you not believe that I am in my Father and my Father in me??

Ah, doubt. I doubt I would have searched deeper here without your question. Like the holes in the messiah?s hands, even the gaps between words reveal their part of the story. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet still believe.