Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lord and God
#1
Shalom,

When I read in the English the words Lord and God, are these transliterated, translated or placed in the English text due to tradition and common use?
What are the Aramaic equivalents?
Thanks.

Mark
Reply
#2
shlomo Mark,

lord => moro
Lord => moryo <= (Lord Yah)
god => aloho <= Generic word for God
God => aloho
Lord God => moryo aloho

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#3
Or:

'Lord' (Mar)

'Our Lord' (Maran)

God (Alaha)

Lord God (Mar Yah)

My Lord (Mari)




abudar2000 Wrote:shlomo Mark,

lord => moro
Lord => moryo <= (Lord Yah)
god => aloho <= Generic word for God
God => aloho
Lord God => moryo aloho

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#4
shlam lakh akh Albion,

mar and mari are the same word, which mean "my lord"

mar (In classical Syriac-Aramaic) <= In classical Syriac-Aramaic the "yudh" of the first person sing. isn't pronounced
mari (In neo-Syriac-Aramaic) <= In neo-Syriac-Aramaic the "yudh" of the first person sing. is pronounced

mar => is also used like the word "Sir" in English when addressing someone.

mara => a lord <= Absolute State
mare => lord over <= Construct state ex: mare bayta => head of the family

---
mar <= without a first person "yudh"; this would be a verb in the pefect of the 3rd person singluar, which means "bitter"

---
The construct "marya" is a unique exception that was done on purpose, and out of respect for the full name of "Yah".

push bashlama,
keefa-morun
Reply
#5
Shlama Abudar,

Thanks for the Aramaic lesson, and for your corrections!

Albion




abudar2000 Wrote:shlam lakh akh Albion,

mar and mari are the same word, which mean "my lord"

mar (In classical Syriac-Aramaic) <= In classical Syriac-Aramaic the "yudh" of the first person sing. isn't pronounced
mari (In neo-Syriac-Aramaic) <= In neo-Syriac-Aramaic the "yudh" of the first person sing. is pronounced

mar => is also used like the word "Sir" in English when addressing someone.

mara => a lord <= Absolute State
mare => lord over <= Construct state ex: mare bayta => head of the family

---
mar <= without a first person "yudh"; this would be a verb in the pefect of the 3rd person singluar, which means "bitter"

---
The construct "marya" is a unique exception that was done on purpose, and out of respect for the full name of "Yah".

push bashlama,
keefa-morun
Reply
#6
Albion, thank you. Could you please answer for me the first part of my question. I am interested in the reasons why YHWH's Name is not transliterated?

Thanks and blessings to you,
Mark
Reply
#7
Dear Mark,

I take it that "Marya" ('Mar Yah') IS a transliteration of "YHWH".

Look at what Abudar said here: "The construct "marya" is a unique exception that was done on purpose, and out of respect for the full name of "Yah"."

Other's might disagree with that assessment, I'm not certain.

I do NOT believe that there are ANY olden Hebrew MSS of the New Covenant, that are from the First Century.

The "Original Autographs" are in ARAMAIC.

Hence, "Marya" instead of 'YHWH'. Aramaic, instead of Hebrew.

And as Paul Younan has pointed out to us MANY TIMES, Aramaic IS a kind of Hebrew (and vice versa).

Shlama, Albion


markt Wrote:Albion, thank you. Could you please answer for me the first part of my question. I am interested in the reasons why YHWH's Name is not transliterated?

Thanks and blessings to you,
Mark
Reply
#8
Albion Wrote:And as Paul Younan has pointed out to us MANY TIMES, Aramaic IS a kind of Hebrew (and vice versa).

Quote:And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and dost possess it, and dwell therein.....that thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which thou shalt bring in from thy land that the LORD thy God giveth thee; and thou shalt put it in a basket and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there.........and thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him: 'I profess this day unto the LORD thy God, that I am come unto the land which the LORD swore unto our fathers to give us.'............And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand, and set it down before the altar of the LORD thy God.........And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God: 'A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous.
(Deuteronomy Chapter 26:1-5)

"My ancestors were starving Arameans." The person bringing the first fruits to the Temple in Jerusalem remembers the shame of the famine that led his ancestor Jacob and the Jewish people into slavery in Egypt. (Rabbi Roy Tanenbaum, Congregation Beth Tzedec, Toronto)

Aramaic = Hebrew = Aramaic

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#9
Dear Mark,

If I understand your question correctly: you want to know why, in the Aramaic NT, we do not find YHWH transliterated as is.

We do not write the entire name of God in Aramaic. We always use shorthand. One of the shorthands we use is actually found in the Hebrew of the OT, the "YH".

Another way we write it is by using a special title reserved for God alone, it's MRYA (pronounced Mar-Yah).

This is from back when were we Jews, we do not pronounce or write His Name. We are of the "Elohist" tradition.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#10
Hi Paul, I can understand why 'some' Jews do not say or write YHWH's Name although not necessarily do I agree. Does this infer that you (and whoever do not utter the Name) do so because of Rabbinical decrees?

My question was why does the translation use the words Lord and God instead of the Hebrew Names?

Thanks.

Mark
Reply
#11
Hi Mark,

Not really because of rabbinical decrees, we never really gave a you-know-what about decrees from any Rabbis. While on cordial terms with our Semitic brethren, the CoE's patrimony is about as anti-rabbinical as you will find. That was by design, of course.

The tradition of not writing the NAME in Aramaic is actually quite ancient, and predates NT times. If you go ahead and click any of the Targums to the left on the menu, you'll notice that in Aramaic the NAME was not written. It's only written in Hebrew.

Since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, it's not surprising that you do not find the NAME in the NT - only shorthand, like on the logo of this website.

IF you are referring to the other titles, like "Alaha" instead of "Elohim", "Mar" instead of "Adon", etc. That's because those titles mean nothing in Aramaic. Why transliterate when you already have words for "God" and "Lord" ???

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#12
Dear Paul, thanks for your response. As you say, the actions of the scribes in not writing the Name certainly predates the NT. During the Babylonian dispersion many hundreds of years earlier than the NT in fact. Of course, this was an enactment to the scribes by decree from the Rabbi's as we all know so well. That's why I asked the question about Rabbinical decrees.
Going back to my original question I was more concerned that the Name has not been transliterated from Hebrew to Aramaic AND that the translator has used pagan words like Lord and God in the English. Surely you will agree if we are to render the Name (s) correctly this will preserve the efficacy of YHWH's words to Moshe? By not using them, we act to 'change' what YHWH had imposed?

Shalom,

Mark
Reply
#13
Shlama Mark,

Using "Alaha" or "MarYah" instead of a transliterated "YHWH" in Aramaic is no different than using "Elohim" or "Adonai" or "El Shaddai" in Hebrew, and no different than using "God" and "LORD" in English. None of these are pagan names, in fact they are not names at all, they are merely titles.

I'm not quite sure why substituting a title, or a shorthand like the "YWY" of the Targums, affects the efficacy of the word of God.

You see Akhi, "YHWH" is an actual word in Hebrew and it means something. It doesn't really mean anything in Aramaic, although the root "hwa" is the same between the two languages. However in Aramaic the NAME would be conjugated differently.

I'm not sure if this makes sense to you or not, but it's rather dangerous to place a transliterated "YHWH" into Aramaic since the root is the same yet the morphology would be different. The reader is liable to be confused and may render an entirely different meaning.

It's much better to put the letters "YHWH" into an English-language version of the OT, since it cannot be mistaken for anything viable in the English language. But there are reasons, and darn good ones, that the authors of the Targums substituted with "YWY" or "YY" or "YH" when writing in Aramaic.

Number one: to convey to the reader that the NAME belongs there. Number two: it means nothing in Aramaic, so why write it? Number three: it could be that the transliterated words, especially when used with the wrong vowel points, could mean something entirely different in Aramaic.

Why chance it? Aramaic already had titles for God that were around from before the first Hebrew-speaker was born, that are perfectly acceptable to use.
Reply
#14
Shalom again Paul, all the way through the TNK, YHWH commands and warns us not to use 'substitute' names for Him.
If the Aramaic writer chooses to substitute His name then clearly this is a breach of YHWH's command. The Name was always originally YHWH so why not transliterate it (preserve it)? Why use MarYah when YHWH is original? I asked why the translators use the pagan words Lord and God. I have to disagree with you Akhi, as these are pagan and without the need to go into theology I will leave it there. My question has still not been answered, why the use of Lord and God? I am confused when you state "Aramaic already had titles for God that were around from before the first Hebrew-speaker was born, that are perfectly acceptable to use." Really? Please tell me who spoke Aramaic before the first Hebrew speaker?

Shalom,

Mark
Reply
#15
Shlama Akhi Mark,

markt Wrote:I asked why the translators use the pagan words Lord and God.

Are you really suggesting that the 2nd word in the very first book of the OT is of pagan origin? Because in the Hebrew, the 2nd word used after "berisheth" is "Elohim", which is the Hebrew version of the Aramaic "Alaha" and the Arabic "Allah" and the English "God."

I really don't think you understand what you are referring to.

markt Wrote:Why use MarYah when YHWH is original?

I already answered this question several times. I will, once again, for your benefit - but please pay attention this time. Firstly, YHWH means nothing in Aramaic - it's a Hebrew word with a specific meaning. Secondly, prior to NT times the tradition was well established that in Aramaic the name of God was abbreviated or otherwise coded. MarYah in the NT is no different than YWY in Targum Onkelos or YY in Targum Yonathan or "Jehovah" in modern English translations.

markt Wrote:My question has still not been answered, why the use of Lord and God.

It has been answered, you've just not paid attention. Why the use of "God" in the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 ? Why the use of "Lord" in the Hebrew of countless OT passages?

Are you really suggesting that any of these titles are of pagan origin?

markt Wrote:Please tell me who spoke Aramaic before the first Hebrew speaker?

Something tells me we are going to have to put this up on the FAQ page, people. I think I've explained this a million times more than necessary.

Akhi Mark.....do Terah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Rachel and Leah count? Or, are the scriptures lying to us when they call these people Arameans?

Did the Hebrews arrive on this planet on a spaceship from Mars, or from an already existing Aramean population in the middle east?

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)