Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Armaya or Aramaya?
Could somebody clear this up?

Some translations descriabeTimothy having a an 'Aramean' (Aramoya) while others have 'Gentile'.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... e.php?p=29</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

The difference would be 'Armaya' (pagan) and 'Aramaya'. (Syrian)

So, how can I be sure which translation is correct since Lamsa uses 'Syrian' etheridge transscribes and Murdock has 'Gentile'?
If I understand what is written in Payne-Smith, the dichotomy of Armaya and Aramaya developed out of the advent of Mashiyach, that is to say, the connotation of 'pagan' toward Armaya developed later (than the writing of the book of the Acts, etc.). Understand that Murdock was not a Peshitta primacist and thusly his work is swayed at some times like this verse. Because the AENT is based partly on Murdock's work, this reading has been partly carried into Roth's work.

I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.
so, can we say that the difference between the two words is something from later centuries, not from the first centiry?

if the peshitta is a transfer from Palastinian Aramaic to Odessa, the vowels would be added later.
So, in the begin, there would not be two different words for 'Aramean'? Of course, this is an assumption from me.

That's the implication. It's interesting though the term juggling that was going on even in the early times. How is it that one source says Aramaean and another says Grecian? The divergence is quite shocking. But there's also some sense in Jerome when he interprets this word as gentili. So you can see the same processes which we find in this era were happening in the early centuries. Perhaps Jerome understood the divergence that had arisen from the Greek and Aramaic texts; in the same manner he resolves the contradiction in the Greek of Mark 7:26. Here's the question now: is there any evidence (besides Acts 16:1) that Timothy's father was one or the other?

From ar'meyan we have aromean, aromean and now after the fall of Saint Roman Empire we have ?rom?n?,, replacing ?ea? or ?eya? with ??? in modern grammar.

The armenians are the people living in East of Black Sea and north of today Turkey, descendents of Aram. I don?t believe that the text is referring to them as they are to far and at that time they were very isolated by parthians.

The aromanians are a people living in the South region of Danube (Duna) River and Vest of Black Sea (Europea), Makedonia and North Greece, speaking a old language derived from ancient aramaic, persian, and latin, and very close to today romanian. They have come from far West wile persians have conquered their territories in East and I believe Timothy?s father was part of this people. They still have some country places were this language is spoken more by older people, even on borders of Greece.
Here is a generic map:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... vlachs.png</a><!-- m -->
Here are the Greece territories were their language is still spoken today:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... rities.svg</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... n-speaking</a><!-- m -->

The romanians were a nomad people who lived in XVIII century in North of Danube River and Vest of Black Sea, around 4 districts, from were we have this name today, and from witch we will have 2 districts of nomads that have come from Media running from Cirrus the Great. They have this name after the skin color who is close to armenians and there is an accident that all the people from 3 countries have been named after them after their language have been merged with the daco-romanians (Moldavia in East, Traslivalia with Ardeal - The Wilderness Hill Country in West and The Romanians Country in South-East). The aromanians from Western Romania are here from after the transhumance from South to North has been stopped, and have same origins as the aromanians from Greece, Makedonia and Albany.
Hi Oryinider,

I don't think that Aram is related to roman or Armenian.
Aram is the ancestor of all Arameans, just like Heber was for the Hebrews.

My question was related to Aramoye or Armoye. According to dictionaries, these two words are more or les similar but historically got an other meaning.

Shlama lukhon,

I believe there is some definite text-tampering going on in the Greek camp. A very good case in point would be Colossians 3:11. From the Greek you would have "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
From Aramaic -- where there is neither Jew nor Aramean, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither Greek nor barbarian, neither bond nor free; but the Messiah is all, and in all.

Victor Alexander's feelings are really strong in his comments on this verse....

*3:11.1 "Jew or Aramaean" is correct, not "Jew or Greek" as is in Western translations. Jews and Aramaeans were culturally similar. They shared the same language for one thing. Customs were the same, etc.
*3:11.2 In this passage occurs a great distortion in Western translations. The name "Scythian" is substituted for "Greek." "Scythians" is a total fabrication. There was no reference to Scythians in the context of early Christianity anywhere in Scriptures or in the lands where Christianity was preached. "Greeks and barbarians" is correct, referring to the fact that both groups came from polytheism and paganism

Shlama w'Burkate, Bro. Larry
distazo Wrote:I don't think that Aram is related to roman or Armenian.
Aram is the ancestor of all Arameans, just like Heber was for the Hebrews.

Note that the people near Greek still keep their language, and now Makedonia is named Fy-Romania, they speak modern makedonain and a-romanian in all places around Greek and Albany. The Armenians and Aramenians are same people that have come from the North of Syria and Turkey, but have evolved as language in diffrent regions.

Is A-r*menian, were * can be vocalised or readed as "a" or "o" as "ain". <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The text cleary reads Aramaya or Aromaya or any other vocalization but not Ar-maya.
orynider, I hope you are still around these forums. The theory that you expound is quite interesting, never heard of it before. Any historical references to back it up, though?

I am Romanian myself, and I had the chance to listen to Aromanian being spoken. Although it sounds so funny, it is very much intelligible to me. I find it also amazing that it sounds quite similar to the kind of Romanian people in villages of North Maramuresh (north of Romania) speak. Yet Aromanians live way down south from north of Romania and in history they were isloated by at least one non-latin speaking country...

I visited once an Aramaic speaking church here in Chicago and the priest there asked me my last name. When I said "borota" he said that was most probably of Aramaic origin, meaning the blessed one (if I recall correctly)... Does this sound like far fetched to any of you Aramaic experts out there?

Then I also found an article on the web, asserting that Romanian has some peculiar features that are common with Imperial Aramaic. But that's all I actually know of to support the aramaic origins of my native language :- ). I don't recall anything that was taught in school even hinting of what you propose - that our language has Aramaic and Persian origins.
Wasn't Dacia the ancient Romania? It was one of the places where the lost tribes of Israel settled.

Ancient names defenitely have evidence of such historical event.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)