Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
John 1:1
#1
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.
Reply
#2
I like your name Aragorn hehe <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#3
Greetings fellow Tolkienite!

If I am coming to the right conclusion by reading the forum posts, then you are responsible for the "Was the NT really written in Greek?" work. My thanks for an outstanding work, and quite an excellent site. It was that work that actually made me sit back and begin to question Greek primacy.

I am still researching the issue, but so far the Greek primacy arguments that I have come across are very poor. If I do not get some form of arguments soon, on par with the ones you have presented, I will begin to concentrate my studies fully and, hopefully, will not have to bother others with questions as such as I have asked.

Thanks again for challenging the paradigm of the masses.
Reply
#4
Welcome to the forum Elassar!

You are correct. The second occurrence of Alaha (Eloah/Elohim) is preceded by a WAW proclitic which, like in Hebrew, means AND.

As for the rest, Miltha is an incredibly difficult word to convey in English. It can mean Word/logos, but also Manifestation, Emanation, Substance, a real Strider among these many meanings and others too numerous to mention.

I have tended to like focusing on (not exclusively mind you) the MANIFESTATION aspect of Miltha. As the word that comes out of YHWH's mouth, Yah's words are Him even as your words are yours and mine are mine. That breath from MarYah (and the word Ruach/Rokha also means "spirit" and "force") is the Action after the Will thinks of it. Another good way to look at it is as your arm being part of your body but under the control of your mind. Your arm is not separate from you, and so it is with Father and Son (Isaiah 53:1).

So, without getting too much into theology, in the sense I described, you can say the Miltha was with Elohim (God, Aram. Alaha) and was Elohim at the same time. Before being spoken, the Word (Miltha) was in Yah's mind and therefore prexistent prior to creation in that way. After being spoken in power, the Miltha enacted with force the creation through Messiah's hands (literally from the Aramaic) under control of the Divine Mind.

Hope this helps.

How about you, Chris and I get some ale at the Green Dragon Inn? Or do you prefer the Prancing Pony at Bree? Chris is practically next door to Middle Earth as it is, in Australia. Meanwhile my motto is:

One text to rule them all.
One language to find them.
One version from the apostle's pens.
And by enlghtenment, grind them.

Oh well, the road goes ever on...
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#5
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'. However, Aramaic has no definite article, which raises even more debate. 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.
Reply
#6
The Lector:

Most scholars say that "a god" is a terrible rendering. And when you look at the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT version you can only agree. It is rendered "a god" when refrerring to Yeshua, but "God" when referring to Alaha Abba! Inconsistent!

AGR: Such a poet lol! But I believe a dark cloud is rising, the Prancing Pony is not safe with these Greek primacists on the prowl. We will have to protect my Precioussss, oops I mean the Peshitta on our own terms.

Dunedain Ranger: Yeah I like AGR's explanation too. Listen to him, big time. Also it makes me joy inside that "my book" (I use quote marks because it is in a sense all Peshitta people's book with proofs from Paul, AGR, Lamsa etc) has brought Peshitta to you. I am sure the more you delve into the Peshitta, the more you will savour it and will be convinced of originality, and like me, will be so thankful that it fixes up the contradictions of the Greek!!! Watch out for an email from me. It may take many years but you won't mind seeing as you have been blessed with long life <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Everyone: What a bunch of geeks haha

"he's twitching because he's got mahh axe embedded in his nervous system!"
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#7
Quote:The Lector:

Most scholars say that "a god" is a terrible rendering. And when you look at the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT version you can only agree. It is rendered "a god" when refrerring to Yeshua, but "God" when referring to Alaha Abba! Inconsistent!

Hello

Can you explain what you mean? Are you saying that this version you have mentioned has translated 'ho theos' as such? When using 'God' for Alaha abba, is this from ho theos or theos?

Cheers. <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->
Reply
#8
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.
Reply
#9
Also, an interesting question has arisen in my mind due to the fact that there is no definite article in Aramaic. I was a bit intrigued, and turned to the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament which were translated into Greek in the LXX. I see that the Greek definite article is used in the translation of the Aramaic sections. That causes me to wonder how that would work. But I suppose that is a question for another day...
Reply
#10
Greetings all,

The anarthrous (without def. article) Greek noun occurs thousands of time in the Greek NT. The rule is that it is supposed to emphasize the quality of the person , place or thing (without the article) rather than the identity of the person, place or thing. That does not mean that "Theos" is not identifying "The God" , when it is anarthrous, but it emphasizes the nature of Deity.
Be that as it may, John 1 uses the anarthrous Theos in verses 1, 6, ,12,13, & 18 , and the NWT of Jehovah's Witnesses translates all as "God" , except in v.1 . Clearly an inconsistency that reflects their bias.
The anarthrous "Theos" is used 233 times in the Byzantine Greek NT. Many times it refers to God the Father . Only two times does it refer to the pagan notion of "a god", which is clearly explained by the context (See Acts 12:22,& 28:6).

The Aramaic "Elaha" is practically identical with the Hebrew "Elohim". The LXX Greek in Genesis through 2 Chronicles uses the anarthrous "Theos" 240 times; The Hebrew text has "Elohim" 198 times in those places. The ASV translates four of these "a god", referring to a pagan deity.
Where does a Christian apostle ever refer to the true Deity
as if he were referring to a heathen idol ? If the cults were correct, then Jesus would be an idol, since there can be only the one true God.

John one , verses 1-4 & verses 10-14 make it clear that Jesus The Messiah is the true God (see also 1 John 5:20).

The Peshitta has proofs that the Greek does not. They consist in the Aramaic word "Marya" , the Aramaic word for "Yahweh". Marya is used 32 times for Jesus ("Yeshua' in Aramaic") throughout the NT. Jesus Himself used it to define the Messiah in Matthew 22:41-45 , in His quotation of Psalm 110. According to our Lord, David called The Messiah "Marya", which is "Yahweh" - The Lord God.

Paul's interlinear is the best in this regard, since He has "The LORD" in caps, as it should be, to designate "Yahweh", as the English translations of the OT do to translate the sacred Name.
Have a look at my article on this called "Summary of Proofs " and see point # 12at my Peshitta web site, shown at the bottom of this post.

Many blessings,

Dave Bauscher
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#11
Dunedain Wrote: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.

AGR:

Gotcha...I'll have Butterbur cook up some juicy steaks with some "imported ale", namely the Gaffer's home brew.

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.

AGR:

Well let's be clear here. There is no OVERT definite article in Aramaic, like HA in Hebrew, but like everything else, context and experience can guide an Aramaic speaker to understanding whether indefinite or definite articles are intended. I will explain as we go further.

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.

AGR:

No problem. Fire away.

....

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?

AGR:

Actually, I don't even think it is true of the Greek. Let me show you why:

"Well said Teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that Elohim is one and there is no other Eloah but Him."

Mark 12:32

There is one MARYAH (YHWH), one faith and one immersion. One Elohim, Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all of us. But to everyone is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Messiah.

Ephesians 4:5-7

Now, I am using the Peshitta readings, but the Greek has no difference here. Therefore, this is not a linguistic issue at all, but rather looking for either Scripture to harmonize with a single message or to declare it a fraud because it is inconsistent. If we are only talking then about ONE ELOHIM, YHWH, then the reading of "a god"--by easy and conclusive defintion, becomes untenable in BOTH Greek AND Aramaic. If the Greek creates a slight confusion on the matter that's one thing, but the answer to that ambiguity is doing the necessary work to compare the totality of scriptural references on an issue, rather than take one verse out of context. Sometimes methodology trumps even langauge.

So to answer your question, there is NO DOUBT that either Greek or Aramaic should read THE (ONE) ELOHIM, and this is proven even more strongly in Aramaic John. Now let us continue.

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?"

AGR:

Not if they insist scripture lines up with their heresy, no. Can they twist things to make it look otherwise to the uninitiated? Sure. The Arian heresy is only possible as a plausbile model from ambiguous Greek texts that always get twisted to their advantage, but even there, enough other facts line up the other way that the Greek can also be recovered from their cluthces. It's just harder to do with the Greek is all.

As for the rest of your question, it is totally cut and dried, like a barrel of Longbottom Leaf stored at Orthanc. "mighty ones" are AFTER the MILTHA. The MILTHA-Son (see Psalm 33:6) creates ALL by him and for him and through his hands (literally from the Aramaic). Y'shua, coming out from YHWH's mouth as the Word, precedes ALL ANGELS/MIGHTY ONES, and this is why he is called "firstborn of creation", again from both Greek and Aramaic traditions. But Aramaic makes a stronger case, because we know that when Hebrews says Y'shua had a name greater than the angels that such means he has YAH (YHWH) in his name, whereas all angels have the TITLE ONLY, EL (UriEL, RaphaEL, GabriEL, MichaEL, etc.). See also a parallel teaching in Philippians 2.

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.

AGR:

Aramaic can misinterperted like any other language, if someone is either ignorant or determined enough to make that happen. But I believe that when Aramaic is taken at face value and looked at in the total flow of scriptural thought, that it is impossible to get this detail wrong.

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.

AGR:

Understood and appreciated Elassar, and my answer is NO, but with a caveat. Sometimes the meaning of Aramaic words is later perverted for political reasons, such as when the SOC changed the meaning of qnoma. But that is again a THEOLOGICAL decision that affects a linguistic take. In terms of the genuine boundaries of your question, I would have to again say NO, Alaha is God even as MARYAH is YHWH. There is no doubt on that, especially since Alaha is always in SINGULAR form, reflecting the Hebrew ELOAH.

Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#12
BTW , I also have a commentary on John 1:1-18 from The Peshitta with my interlinear translation of the text at the same web site.

Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#13
"Sometimes the meaning of Aramaic words is later perverted for political reasons, such as when the SOC changed the meaning of qnoma"

What did they do?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#14
Dunedain

Thanks for pointing that out.

It really seems as if one has to choose what to apply in each given context, especially in dealing with a language that has no definite article to confer some absoluteness on the issue.

But as I say, the theology will always influence the interpretation. I believe this to be totally unavoidable. One's own philosophy of religion and life will have to influence a linguistic analysis, particularly when dealing with Semetic languages that have many possible meanings to a word.

Quote: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?

I am pretty sure in Mpkana/Exodus that there is a verse that says Mosha [Moses] was to be an 'Alaha' to Pharoah, and Ahron his prophet.

How would one interpret 'god/God'? Again it would depend on your philosophical view, no? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
Reply
#15
Shlama Dunedain,

Perhaps. That is why the "Elaha" title is not the most important. "Marya" is unequivocal; it is never used of any human individual in the OT but always means "Yahweh". It refers many times to Yeshua in The Peshitta NT.

Also , what philosophy can you get out of this ?:
3 (MUR) Every thing was by his hand; and without him, was not any thing whatever that existed.[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0whd Mdm twh 0dx 0lp0 yhwd9lbw 0wh hdy0b lk [/font]3 (Peshitta)
That refers, of course , to [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Flym[/font], in verse one.

Blessings,

Dave Bauscher
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)