Elohim - YWY?

[Andrej]

i would like to know about God's nam in the Peshitta OT.
Why does the Syriac OT substitute Elohim with YWY (Syriac name of God?)? How do you pronounce YWY (no vowel points)? Or do you, like in the Hebrew, substitute Adonai for YWY (which was, in turn, substituted for the Hebrew Elohim)? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- s -->

[distazo]

i would like to know about God's nam in the Peshitta OT.
Why does the Syriac OT substitute Elohim with YWY (Syriac name of God?)? How do you pronounce YWY (no vowel points)? Or do you, like in the Hebrew, substitute Adonai for YWY (which was, in turn, substituted for the Hebrew Elohim)? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- s -->

Hi,

Do you have a reference where this happens?

The MT (Masoretic text) has nearly 7000 times YHWH where the Peshitto has MRY.

[Aaron S]

I believe he's speaking of Targum Onqelos.

[Andrej]

i would like to know about God's nam in the Peshitta OT.
Why does the Syriac OT substitute Elohim with YWY (Syriac name of God?)? How do you pronounce YWY (no vowel points)? Or do you, like in the Hebrew, substitute Adonai for YWY (which was, in turn, substituted for the Hebrew Elohim)? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- s -->

Hi,

Do you have a reference where this happens?

The MT (Masoretic text) has nearly 7000 times YHWH where the Peshitto has MRY.

Hello,
Conveniently, this first happens in Gen. 1:1. i was not referring to YHWH, but to "Elohim". i should add, that until a few days ago, i never looked at a syriac text, and i may be in error on what i said. Reading from the "Triliniar Targums", i can see the verse to substitute YWY for "Elohim", but i may simply making a big false assumption or something. Maybe YWY is just a abbreviation of some kind?

[Aaron S]

That is interesting... I don't know what the source that was being pulled from is; but according to CAL, Targum Jonathan uses yud-shwa-yud-qametz, Onqelos uses yud-waw-yud, and Peshitta Tanakh uses alef-lamed-heh-alef. This is a valid question regarding from whence came this tradition/euphemism.

[monalisa]

Hello,
A question for the Aramaic speakers here:
What is the equivalent Aramaic word for the Hebrew word Elohim? Elohim, the Hebrew word, is a plural form. Is the equivalent Aramaic word for Elohim also a plural form even when speaking of the Elohim that goes with a singular verb and or pronoun?

Thank you!
monalisa

[Paul Younan]

Hello,
A question for the Aramaic speakers here:
What is the equivalent Aramaic word for the Hebrew word Elohim? Elohim, the Hebrew word, is a plural form. Is the equivalent Aramaic word for Elohim also a plural form even when speaking of the Elohim that goes with a singular verb and or pronoun?

Thank you!
monalisa

Hi MonaLisa,

The Aramaic singular for "god" is alaha, the plural for "gods" is alahe. The verbs and adjectives in Aramaic agree in number (and with few exceptions, gender) with the noun.

+Shamasha

[monalisa]

Hello,
A question for the Aramaic speakers here:
What is the equivalent Aramaic word for the Hebrew word Elohim? Elohim, the Hebrew word, is a plural form. Is the equivalent Aramaic word for Elohim also a plural form even when speaking of the Elohim that goes with a singular verb and or pronoun?

Thank you!
monalisa

Hi MonaLisa,

The Aramaic singular for "god" is alaha, the plural for "gods" is alahe. The verbs and adjectives in Aramaic agree in number (and with few exceptions, gender) with the noun.

+Shamasha

Thank you Shamasha Paul. How does the Aramaic translate Elohim, a plural noun, when the Hebrew has a singular pronoun or verb with it? For instance:

Joshua 24:19

Young's Literal Translation
And Joshua saith unto the people, 'Ye are not able to serve Jehovah, for a God most holy He is; a zealous God He is; He doth not bear with your transgression and with your sins.

Literally in the Hebrew, "for the holy ones are he."

Gill's comment on this here:
In the Hebrew text it is, "for the Holy Ones are he": which may serve to illustrate and confirm the doctrine of the trinity of, persons in the unity of the divine Essence, or of the three divine holy Persons, holy Father, holy Son, holy Spirit, as the one God, see Isaiah 6:3,

http://bible.cc/joshua/24-19.htm

[Paul Younan]

Hi MonaLisa

Aramaic translates Elohim as Alaha (singular), regardless of what the number is of the adjectives, if the context dictates it as singular.

Each language has its own little quirks that aren't always shared by the other.

For instance, here's an example of the reverse: in both languages, the word for "spirit" is the same; rukh.

In Aramaic, the word is grammatically feminine. Hence, early Aramaic Christian literature featured grammatically feminine adjectives and imagery when speaking of the Holy Spirit. Not that the Holy Spirit is feminine, but that the rules of Aramaic Grammar force the practice.

In Hebrew, the word (even though it's the same), is grammatically masculine.

So if the Odes of Solomon were to be translated into Hebrew, then much of the feminine imagery (and reasons for it) would be lost. (Incidentally, that's one of the reasons scholars were convinced that the Odes were originally written in Aramaic instead of Greek, up until the point when they finally found the original Aramaic!)

Back to Elohim: this isn't plural in the sense of plural. What I mean by that is, this grammatical feature is called Plurality of Abstraction. (Some people call it Plurality of Excellence.)

Interestingly, this Plurality of Abstraction is also found in Aramaic and other Semitic languages.

What this grammatical feature means is this: when taking something and making it plural, it is amplified, elevated, made more excellent and becomes the epitome or standard.

Take for instance one example of Plurality of Abstraction that is common to both Hebrew and Aramaic: the word for "life" in both languages is Khay.

In both languages, when it is plural (khayyim, khaye), it means "everlasting life".

The word Elohim isn't necessarily plural in every context, sometimes it's like Khayyim: just because it takes on a plural form doesn't mean it is necessarily referring to multiple gods in the context, any more than khayyim is referring to multiple lives.

I realize that Christian apologists (including in our own tradition) have made it a point to include this quirk of Hebrew in defense of our understanding of the Triune Nature of God, but in fairness it is an oversimplifying of the underlying grammar.

Even the "Let Us make man in Our own image" is related to the grammatical rule of the Plurality of Abstraction surrounding Elohim. Much the same way the Odes of Solomon are forced to refer to the genderless Spirit in the feminine. (And often do so for colorful emphasis/play on the grammar.)

Hope that made sense. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

+Shamasha

[monalisa]

Thanks for clarifying Shamasha!
So from what you said, the Aramaic equivalent of Elohim does not offer the plurality of abstraction like Elohim can. Is that right?

Also, from what Strong's concordance says, the Hebrew word for 'spirit' is feminine which opposes what you have said in your post?? Can you explain this discrepancy?

If it isn't too much trouble, could you provide a link to show that the original Odes to Solomon has been found? That sounds interesting.

Blessings,
Monalisa

[Paul Younan]

If it isn't too much trouble, could you provide a link to show that the original Odes to Solomon has been found? That sounds interesting.

Hi MonaLisa,

From: [url]http://archive.org/details/odespsalmsofsolo01harruoft
[/url]

It came to light in the early quest for the lost Odes ot
Solomon that five of them were quoted, either wholly or in
part, in that fantastic product of third-century Gnosticism,
the Pistis Sophia, of which the unique MS. lies in the
British Museum. The text of the Pistis Sophia has been
carefully edited by several hands, and it has not been thought
advisable to make a facsimile of those parts of it which
contain extracts from, or comments upon, the Odes. The
whole of the involved Coptic tradition of the Odes has,
however, been carefully reproduced, and the Editors have
had the assistance, in the final revision, of the care and
oversight of Mr. Gaselee, of Magdalene College, Cambridge,
to whom they wish to express their sincere thanks for his
scholarly help.

The Odes of Solomon (in a Syriac translation, accompanied
by the Psalms of Solomon) were discovered by Rendel Harris on
Jan. 4, 1909, in a MS. in his collection, which is said by the
discoverer to have come from the banks of the Tigris. It was
numbered in that collection Cod. Syr. 152, and has now been
transferred to the John Rylands Library, where it stands as Cod.
Syr. 9. The MS. is a small paper volume, much worn and
stained, and has lost, apparently, three leaves at the beginning
and perhaps three leaves at the end. In other respects it is.
complete, very carefully written and legible, forming a volume of
56 leaves preserved from an original volume of 62 leaves. The
first and second Odes and the opening of the third Ode stood on
the leaves that were lost at the beginning ; and the Psalms of
Solomon at the other end of the book are defective from Ps. xvii. 38
to the end. The omissions are to be regretted, especially at the
beginning of the book, but they are not serious, and, as we shall
see, the missing first Ode has been recovered from the Pistis
Sophia, so that what is really lost in the Odes is the second Ode,
and some verses at the beginning of the third Ode. The defect at
the other end of the book has been met almost completely by the
British Museum MS. to be described hereafter.

+Shamasha

[IPOstapyuk]

To me Elohim looks singular.
For example God said to Moses that you will be Elohim and Aaron will be your prophet.
Looks like it means just god or certain rank of gods.