Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I now have a website!
#16
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

Thanks for the warm reception! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

A

Akhi Judge, I'm not sure what you mean about an article about John's Gospel on my website. The first piece was PATH TO LIFE, and thanks to excellent scholarship of Akhi Paul, I have updated that essay with some clearer language and more powerful evidence--seeing that proof that Rabulla wrote Old Syriac blew my mind and I could not wait to write about it. I will send it to my webmaster tonight and hopefully the new version will be up this week.



Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Hi again Andrew. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
It was an article which at one time was in beth gaza which was particularly interesting as it dealt with the changes in gender in the aramaic in the early part of Johns gospel.
Do you remember it?
Reply
#17
Akha Andrew & Paul,

The article "Ancient Evidence" is great and supplies much
unknown evidence for Peshitta Primacy and OS counterfeiting. I can't get enough of it.
I have found a serious error in one of your examples (Paul's citation on Mark 5:26).

Quote:"The other point of the post was, the Peshitta could not be a revision of the "Old-Syriac" in favor
of the Greek reading of Mark 5:26. I cannot even fathom a direct relationship between the Peshitta
and OS, unless the translators of the "Old-Syriac" had referenced the Peshitta. That's about the
only relationship I can even imagine. The supposed revisers of the Peshitta had no reason to
include 0dy0 and change the Proclitic w to a Proclitic d.
"Look at this example through Occam's Razor. Notice also the second difference in the first line.
The Old Syriac has trbys (#13856)15 which is closer to the Greek 'Pas-kho' (meaning 'Endure'),
whereas the Peshitta has tlbs, (#13687) which means 'Suffer.' How can the Peshitta be a
revision of the OS in favor of the Greek, if the OS is closer to the Greek than the Peshitta is?

Examples like this one just don't make sense within the currently accepted Western framework."

The problem is with Paul's definition of Pas-kho. Pas-kho- (pasxw) means " I suffer" , not "I endure", which latter Paul affirms. "Upomeno" is the Greek for "I endure". The Peshitta agrees with the Greek here.

This , I think, would obviate the point of this example from the argument.

Overall, a great job on this article ! I hope to see even more examples from Aphrahat and others, as well as The Diatessaron.

I do think the Greek (Zorba) is our friend , not an adversary, as Trimm seems to treat it. The Greek all came from the Peshitta and is a very powerful witness in all of its mss. for Peshitta Primacy. The Byzantine text agrees generally with The Peshitta text (75%) against The Alexandrian. But you have also shown how many Alexandrian readings also came from The Peshitta.

Therefore, we should learn and use Greek as skillfully as possible in our demonstrations. William Norton states his belief that The Apostles would have commissioned a Greek translation of the gospels and epistles and then authorized the final version before sending it out . I find this very convincing.

That does not mean the Greek is a perfect translation; there is no such thing as a perfect translation.
It would mean that The Greek (Majority Text) would have been a very accurate and faithfully executed work which represented the original as well as humanly possible.
The translation work would not be the God breathed word, as The Peshitta is, but then most of the world must rely on a translation of the originals.

That translation is very well documented and supported in its accuracy and can illuminate the possible meanings in many places in The Peshitta. It was undoubtedly made early in the first century. We have a treasure trove of early witnesses in the Greek mss. , especially in the Byzantine text, but also in the other types.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fkrwbw 0ml$[/font]

Dave B
Reply
#18
Akhi Judge,

The article you are talking about is "The Mystery of Miltha". I turned it into a section on Ruach Qadim as follows:

Spotlight Feature: The Mystery of Miltha

The Gospel of John, regardless as to which language it is studied in, presents a series of unique challenges to any serious Bible student. John confronts us with a spiritual depth unmatched elsewhere but with a key paradox. That depth is frequently peppered with statements that seem almost cruelly short given the task that they are trying to accomplish. John 3:16 for example has become, like the Shema declaration in Deuteronomy 6:4, the essential crystallization and basic recitation of what faith in Messiah really means.

The study of John also demands a slightly different methodology from what was done for Matthew, Mark and Luke, and this departure manifests itself in two ways. First, up until now, direct theological proofs have not been employed in the book sections since they are better dealt with in a later section.

However, in John's case the entire Gospel in Aramaic is a mixture of spirituality, poetry and even humor that are permanently welded together. Therefore, to create a separate spiritual section for John is like trying to create a place for water where only the hydrogen atoms can gather. Take one element away from the mixture, and what is left is hopelessly bereft because there is not a single Aramaic letter in his Gospel that is not imbued with divine resonance and power. In that sense then, theological and textual proofs must exist here side by side.

The second departure relates to the first in that the only aspect of John to "spotlight" is this ubiquitous and infinitely deep spiritual aspect. So, rather than put the "Spotlight Feature" towards the end, the entire work from beginning to end is in effect what is being emphasized.

So, with those thoughts in mind, let us proceed to our first primacy proof which, not surprisingly given this background, occurs in the very first sentence.

Flm 0wh Yhwty0 ty4rb
BRESHIT AYTOHI HWA MILTHA
In the Beginning was the Miltha.

Now I suppose many of you reading this expected me to substitute "Word" for miltha in the English portion, even as many laymen and scholars alike have done so with logos in the Greek tradition. However, while miltha does mean "word", its full depth cannot be adequately translated. As such, miltha is the first of what will be many Aramaic theological terms that can only be discussed through explanation and metaphor, as opposed to being given a strict dictionary definition. For now though, "Word" will do fine as a launching point while we sift through the poetic and grammatical challenges of the Apostle John's first statement.

As for the way this particular verse is presented, the reason for the odd color-coding is to address an often-overlooked element of Semitic grammar. Put simply, every word in Hebrew or Aramaic must be either masculine or feminine, and this particular phrase reflects something very unusual that will become clear momentarily. Before that though, let me give a few examples of the way things normally work:

0nhrwkd 0xwr hl twh ty0d Ftn0 Nmt twh ty0
AYT HWT TAMIN ANTATHA DAYAT HWT LEH ROKHA D???KORHHANA
There was a woman who was there who had a spirit of infirmity.

Luke 13:11

This is proper Aramaic grammar, with the female noun of woman (antatha) being joined with a female verb for was (hwt). So when it comes to nouns being linked to verbs, the gender for both parts of the sentence must match. Of course, this same principle works for the masculine gender as well:

zrkmw dm9m 0rbdmb Nnxwy 0wh
HWA YOCHANAN B???MADBARA MAIMAD W???MKRAZ
Was Yochanan in the wilderness baptizing and preaching.

Mark 1:4

Again, the nouns and verbs match up, with the male noun (Yochanan) linked to the male verb form of was (hwa).

However, if we look again at the verse we are studying, an amazing pattern emerges as AYTOHI HWA MILTHA, or two masculine verbs linked to a feminine noun! So, if the Aramaic version of John 1:1was somehow a translation from Greek, how is it the redactor could not wait four words to miss the most basic rule of Aramaic grammar? Or, to put it another way, poetry and bending grammatical rules do not translate into the receiving language. Furthermore, even if it was conceivable that the "translator" of the Peshitta would make such a glaring error, surely that would be something that would happen well into the text and not in the first sentence!

So, if this disregard of the rules is not due to translation irregularities, why then would the author of the original Aramaic text engage in such a departure from the ordinary? In order to answer that question, we need to dwell deeper into the mysteries of gender in Aramaic and Hebrew. First let us look at what the Tanakh says:

"And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Genesis 1:27

The point of this passage is that there are male and female images of God, but this is not the same thing as saying the Almighty is both male and female because, as the text clearly says, God is a He. Nevertheless, aspects of God are given one gender or another, both grammatically and spiritually:

"But a shoot shall grow out of the stump of Jesse; a twig shall sprout from his stock. The spirit of the LORD shall alight on him; a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and valor, a sprit of devotion and reverence for the LORD. He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the LORD."

Isaiah 11:1-3

So, in the case of the word for "spirit" as used in the Isaiah verse, or ruach (xwr), this word is always female. However, if it combines with either another masculine noun (like God) or a male adjective, the entire phrase is considered male.

As a result, the phrase spirit of wisdom and insight (hnybw hmkh xwr) is female whereas a spirit of counsel and valor (hrwbgw hue xwr) is clearly male. At the same time, the concept of God as depicted in Deuteronomy 6:4 as being echad (dxa) has a sense of oneness commingled with a unity of aspects that manifest in time and space but derive from a single Divine Nature (Let us go down and make man after our image and after our likeness), necessitates that His "likenesses" be in both genders.

Therefore, John is breaking the rules of Aramaic grammar on purpose to make an extremely important poetic and spiritual point. Since there is no neuter (it, one) in either Hebrew or Aramaic, there was no "official" way that John could express the totality of the gender of spirits from YHWH that rest on the Messiah (Isaiah 11:1-3). Furthermore, the same is true of the fact that all aspects of God were supposed to dwell bodily within him, as this verse from the apostle Paul shows:

???He is the image of the invisible God, and the first born over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the assembly; he is the beginning and the firstborn among the dead. For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in him.???

Colossians 1:15-19

Subsequently, if John follows proper Aramaic grammar to depict either an all-male or all-female construct, he will then leave out half of the powers and attributes that are supposed to dwell in Messiah! As a result, John's ultimate solution to this dilemma had to involve an "illegal" device that, while awkward, nonetheless represents the only way to communicate this full unity by mating a female noun with two male verbs.

Another key reason why John chose miltha has to do with its unique root, which is amply demonstrated when Y'shua says:

"I will open my mouth in parables, and bring out secrets that were from before the foundation of the world."

Matthew 13:35 (Younan Peshitta Interlinear Version)

The near direct quotation of Psalm 78:2 in the above verse closely mirrors what is in the Masoretic Text, which uses the word mashal (lsm), for "parable". However, a very good Aramaic equivalent of mashal is mithleh (ftm), and this is the word Y'shua uses in the Peshitta version of Matthew. So, as should be apparent by now, miltha and mithleh are nearly identical words derived from the same root, and where Matthew says secrets from before the creation of the world will be revealed by the Messiah, John is making the exact same point here. Furthermore, this verse is not the only time John records Y'shua making this connection, as our next example shows:

"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me from the creation of the world."

John 17:24

A last consideration in the mind of John must have been the depth of meaning in the word itself. Put simply, miltha is a term that has no direct equivalent in any other language, including Hebrew. Like the Tanakh usage of davar (rbd) in Psalm 33:6 and the frequent targumic allusion to memra to avoid the anthropomorphizing of Deity, miltha has great power as a particle of divine speech. However, miltha has meanings not even hinted at in these other terms, and certainly not in the Greek logos. Over the centuries, miltha has been rendered as "force", "manifestation", "emanation", "substance" as well as "word", and even all these put together still don't come close to approaching its totality. Surely though it was also this very diversity that John wanted, since only a nearly infinite-meaning word can attempt to do justice to that which is infinite in the first place.

Finally, this is just the first of many instances of Scriptural evidence that proves John is clearly aware of material from the other Gospels, and yet is determined to couch that knowledge in ways that are symbolic, subtle, yet very profound.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#19
gbausc Wrote:Akha Andrew & Paul,

The article "Ancient Evidence" is great and supplies much
unknown evidence for Peshitta Primacy and OS counterfeiting. I can't get enough of it.

Shlama Akhi Dave,

I am glad you are enjoying it, and wanted to say that I appreciate your thoroughness and your scholarly demeanor. I do have a question though, as you will see.

You continue:

I have found a serious error in one of your examples (Paul's citation on Mark 5:26).

Quote:"The other point of the post was, the Peshitta could not be a revision of the "Old-Syriac" in favor
of the Greek reading of Mark 5:26. I cannot even fathom a direct relationship between the Peshitta
and OS, unless the translators of the "Old-Syriac" had referenced the Peshitta. That's about the
only relationship I can even imagine. The supposed revisers of the Peshitta had no reason to
include 0dy0 and change the Proclitic w to a Proclitic d.
"Look at this example through Occam's Razor. Notice also the second difference in the first line.
The Old Syriac has trbys (#13856)15 which is closer to the Greek 'Pas-kho' (meaning 'Endure'),
whereas the Peshitta has tlbs, (#13687) which means 'Suffer.' How can the Peshitta be a
revision of the OS in favor of the Greek, if the OS is closer to the Greek than the Peshitta is?

Examples like this one just don't make sense within the currently accepted Western framework."

The problem is with Paul's definition of Pas-kho. Pas-kho- (pasxw) means " I suffer" , not "I endure", which latter Paul affirms. "Upomeno" is the Greek for "I endure". The Peshitta agrees with the Greek here.

This , I think, would obviate the point of this example from the argument.

AGR continues:

Okay, and obviously Paul can speak for himself here. But here is what I want to know. The following is from <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crosswalk.com">http://www.crosswalk.com</a><!-- w -->

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3958 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
pasco apparently a root word
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pascho 5:904,798
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pas'-kho Verb

Definition
to be affected or have been affected, to feel, have a sensible experience, to undergo
in a good sense, to be well off, in good case
in a bad sense, to suffer sadly, be in a bad plight
of a sick person


NAS Word Usage - Total: 40
endured 1, endured...sufferings 1, suffer 22, suffered 10, suffering 4, suffers 2

NAS Verse Count
Matthew 3
Mark 3
Luke 6
Acts 5
1 Corinthians 1
2 Corinthians 1
Galatians 1
Philippians 1
1 Thessalonians 1
2 Thessalonians 1
2 Timothy 1
Hebrews 4
1 Peter 10
Revelation 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 39

Did you see it? PASKO means BOTH "endure" and "suffer". Now you know that in the Aramaic - Greek comparisons that we do, many times an Aramaic word has multiple meanings, and the Greek witnesses split on which one to take.

In this case, we have a dual meaning word in Greek, and a split choice between the Peshitta and OS. Is it not then still possible to argue (even from the Greek) that the Peshitta has a better reading over OS. Of course, "enduring" and "suffering" appear to be related concepts in both languages. So perhaps it is not a huge error at all, but simply a need for more clarity of definition? What do you think?

Then you (Dave) say:

Overall, a great job on this article ! I hope to see even more examples from Aphrahat and others, as well as The Diatessaron.


AGR:
Thank you!

Dave:

I do think the Greek (Zorba) is our friend , not an adversary, as Trimm seems to treat it. The Greek all came from the Peshitta and is a very powerful witness in all of its mss. for Peshitta Primacy. The Byzantine text agrees generally with The Peshitta text (75%) against The Alexandrian. But you have also shown how many Alexandrian readings also came from The Peshitta.

AGR:

I have often said that the Greek can be my best friend because it contains evidence of the mistranslation and bows down to Peshitta, just as LXX bows down to its Hebrew master. What Trimm does is use clearly sueprior majority readings in both Peshitta and Byzantine against the Peshitta. Now that we know who did Old Syriac though, this is beyond irrelevant.

Dave:

Therefore, we should learn and use Greek as skillfully as possible in our demonstrations. William Norton states his belief that The Apostles would have commissioned a Greek translation of the gospels and epistles and then authorized the final version before sending it out . I find this very convincing.

AGR:

I agree. My point has been that following just the Greek has been the problem. Not to discard the Greek, but to study both. Obviously though, I believe that the Peshitta still has the superior readings in so many cases, a fact that you also acknowledge.

Dave:

That does not mean the Greek is a perfect translation; there is no such thing as a perfect translation.
It would mean that The Greek (Majority Text) would have been a very accurate and faithfully executed work which represented the original as well as humanly possible.
The translation work would not be the God breathed word, as The Peshitta is, but then most of the world must rely on a translation of the originals.

That translation is very well documented and supported in its accuracy and can illuminate the possible meanings in many places in The Peshitta. It was undoubtedly made early in the first century. We have a treasure trove of early witnesses in the Greek mss. , especially in the Byzantine text, but also in the other types.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fkrwbw 0ml$[/font]

Dave B

AGR:

Thanks for your input as it is greatly appreciated.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#20
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:
gbausc Wrote:Akha Andrew & Paul,

The article "Ancient Evidence" is great and supplies much
unknown evidence for Peshitta Primacy and OS counterfeiting. I can't get enough of it.

Shlama Akhi Dave,

I am glad you are enjoying it, and wanted to say that I appreciate your thoroughness and your scholarly demeanor. I do have a question though, as you will see.

You continue:

I have found a serious error in one of your examples (Paul's citation on Mark 5:26).

Quote:"The other point of the post was, the Peshitta could not be a revision of the "Old-Syriac" in favor
of the Greek reading of Mark 5:26. I cannot even fathom a direct relationship between the Peshitta
and OS, unless the translators of the "Old-Syriac" had referenced the Peshitta. That's about the
only relationship I can even imagine. The supposed revisers of the Peshitta had no reason to
include 0dy0 and change the Proclitic w to a Proclitic d.
"Look at this example through Occam's Razor. Notice also the second difference in the first line.
The Old Syriac has trbys (#13856)15 which is closer to the Greek 'Pas-kho' (meaning 'Endure'),
whereas the Peshitta has tlbs, (#13687) which means 'Suffer.' How can the Peshitta be a
revision of the OS in favor of the Greek, if the OS is closer to the Greek than the Peshitta is?

Examples like this one just don't make sense within the currently accepted Western framework."

The problem is with Paul's definition of Pas-kho. Pas-kho- (pasxw) means " I suffer" , not "I endure", which latter Paul affirms. "Upomeno" is the Greek for "I endure". The Peshitta agrees with the Greek here.

This , I think, would obviate the point of this example from the argument.

AGR continues:

Okay, and obviously Paul can speak for himself here. But here is what I want to know. The following is from <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crosswalk.com">http://www.crosswalk.com</a><!-- w -->

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3958 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
pasco apparently a root word
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pascho 5:904,798
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pas'-kho Verb

Definition
to be affected or have been affected, to feel, have a sensible experience, to undergo
in a good sense, to be well off, in good case
in a bad sense, to suffer sadly, be in a bad plight
of a sick person


NAS Word Usage - Total: 40
endured 1, endured...sufferings 1, suffer 22, suffered 10, suffering 4, suffers 2

NAS Verse Count
Matthew 3
Mark 3
Luke 6
Acts 5
1 Corinthians 1
2 Corinthians 1
Galatians 1
Philippians 1
1 Thessalonians 1
2 Thessalonians 1
2 Timothy 1
Hebrews 4
1 Peter 10
Revelation 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 39

Did you see it? PASKO means BOTH "endure" and "suffer". Now you know that in the Aramaic - Greek comparisons that we do, many times an Aramaic word has multiple meanings, and the Greek witnesses split on which one to take.

In this case, we have a dual meaning word in Greek, and a split choice between the Peshitta and OS. Is it not then still possible to argue (even from the Greek) that the Peshitta has a better reading over OS. Of course, "enduring" and "suffering" appear to be related concepts in both languages. So perhaps it is not a huge error at all, but simply a need for more clarity of definition? What do you think?

Then you (Dave) say:

Overall, a great job on this article ! I hope to see even more examples from Aphrahat and others, as well as The Diatessaron.


AGR:
Thank you!

Dave:

I do think the Greek (Zorba) is our friend , not an adversary, as Trimm seems to treat it. The Greek all came from the Peshitta and is a very powerful witness in all of its mss. for Peshitta Primacy. The Byzantine text agrees generally with The Peshitta text (75%) against The Alexandrian. But you have also shown how many Alexandrian readings also came from The Peshitta.

AGR:

I have often said that the Greek can be my best friend because it contains evidence of the mistranslation and bows down to Peshitta, just as LXX bows down to its Hebrew master. What Trimm does is use clearly superior majority readings in both Peshitta and Byzantine against the Peshitta. Now that we know who did Old Syriac though, this is beyond irrelevant.

Dave:

Therefore, we should learn and use Greek as skillfully as possible in our demonstrations. William Norton states his belief that The Apostles would have commissioned a Greek translation of the gospels and epistles and then authorized the final version before sending it out . I find this very convincing.

AGR:

I agree. My point has been that following just the Greek has been the problem. Not to discard the Greek, but to study both. Obviously though, I believe that Peshitta is God-breathed and perfect, but that it is always good to compare.

Dave:

That does not mean the Greek is a perfect translation; there is no such thing as a perfect translation.
It would mean that The Greek (Majority Text) would have been a very accurate and faithfully executed work which represented the original as well as humanly possible.
The translation work would not be the God breathed word, as The Peshitta is, but then most of the world must rely on a translation of the originals.

That translation is very well documented and supported in its accuracy and can illuminate the possible meanings in many places in The Peshitta. It was undoubtedly made early in the first century. We have a treasure trove of early witnesses in the Greek mss. , especially in the Byzantine text, but also in the other types.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fkrwbw 0ml$[/font]

Dave B

AGR:

Thanks for your input as it is greatly appreciated.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#21
,[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]yx0 Fkrwb[/font]


About Pascho, you wrote:

Quote:The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3958 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
pasco apparently a root word
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pascho 5:904,798
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pas'-kho Verb

Definition
to be affected or have been affected, to feel, have a sensible experience, to undergo
in a good sense, to be well off, in good case
in a bad sense, to suffer sadly, be in a bad plight
of a sick person


NAS Word Usage - Total: 40
endured 1, endured...sufferings 1, suffer 22, suffered 10, suffering 4, suffers 2
"Endure" is not part of the definition. It is translated "endure" once (NASV) out of the 40 places pascho occurs. That does not qualify as an alternate definition in my book. Lexical definitions do not give "endure" for this word; upomeno is the word meaning ,"I endure".
The ASV apparently does not use "endure" at all to translate "pascho". I think the NAS is in error in the one place it so translates. (By the way, Acts 1:3 translates pascho as "His passion", referring to Christ's crucifixion).

I certainly would not use The Mark 5:26 reading as a case supporting The Peshitta against The OS in the way you have. You would only be weakening your argument with a poor example.
The fact is that the Greek agrees better with The Peshitta, as it should, since it comes from The Peshitta and not The OS. This is how I would approach it.
Why does the Greek unanimously support the Peshitta reading here, if as Trimm claims, the Greek came from The OS ?
You could change the argument in that way and retain the example.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fxrwb[/font]

Dave B
Reply
#22
Akhi Dave,

I have made the change in Ancient Evidence along the lines you suggest here. My webmaster should have the new version up in a few days. I still think the fact that PASKO can mean both speaks well to Pau's original point, but I also acknowledge your point that a low occurrence of the meaning in question might not be compelling to others.

As always, thanks for your suggestions.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#23
Andrew, You have a great website. It has very important essence. Moreover, the Acrobat Reader is a very good for the documents.
I wish You would secure NT Peshitta e.g. from <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- w --> into Acrobat Reader.
I wonder why the articles are put into Acrobat Reader and nobody puts the PESHITTA into Acrobat Reader. I would do it if I knew how to do it.
Andrew, I plan one day to discuss with you about Ashuri script. It seems to me that we have many common thoughts on this subject.
The last thing. The article "Doctrinal insights from the Peshitta" does not seem to fit into Your website. I DO NOT SAY "Yes" to this book. Let the Holy Spirit personally put doctrines into the hearts of every Christian. The people's doctrines have been making splits in Christianity throughout the history. How one dares to make his own doctrines in the way as if the Peshitta does this?

Ivan.
Reply
#24
Ivan Pavlovich Ostapyuk Wrote:Andrew, You have a great website. It has very important essence. Moreover, the Acrobat Reader is a very good for the documents.
I wish You would secure NT Peshitta e.g. from <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- w --> into Acrobat Reader.
I wonder why the articles are put into Acrobat Reader and nobody puts the PESHITTA into Acrobat Reader. I would do it if I knew how to do it.

AGR:

Shlama Akhi Ivan, and todah for your kind words.

Converting Word into pdfs is very easy to do. I just never saw the need to do so with the Word docs and fonts that are here at peshitta.org. Any Word doc can be converted to Adobe with the full version of Acrobat, and this I happen to have. It's not a bad idea. I can probably do it myself. All that is needed is to merge all the Word docs into one Word doc, and then hit the pdf icon to convert it, while making sure the estrangela is embedded in the doc.

Andrew, I plan one day to discuss with you about Ashuri script. It seems to me that we have many common thoughts on this subject.
The last thing. The article "Doctrinal insights from the Peshitta" does not seem to fit into Your website. I DO NOT SAY "Yes" to this book. Let the Holy Spirit personally put doctrines into the hearts of every Christian. The people's doctrines have been making splits in Christianity throughout the history. How one dares to make his own doctrines in the way as if the Peshitta does this?

AGR:

Ivan, I don't know what you are talking about. That article is not by me but by Christopher Lancaster, and I saw nothing in that initial series that mainstream Nazarenes or Christians would have an issue with. However, I do certainly believe that there are critical doctrinal insights that only come from the Peshitta, not the least of which is that Y'shua is YHWH and that Godhead is made up of QNOMEH rather than "persons". On those scores, I will shout that from the rooftops every time. Besides which, the Holy Spirit can work through people, in dialogue that is either verbal or electronic, and through rightly dividing the Word, the Holy Spirit can put the truth into a believer. It is not merely a process that only comes about from solitary study and prayer.

Finally, the fact that the website is called <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicntTRUTH.org">http://www.aramaicntTRUTH.org</a><!-- w --> should be sufficient to suggest that I am not taking a relativistic all views are okay kind of slant, but advocating a firm position. While I don't agree with everything Chris says and think in many respects he needs to take more time in refining his approach and his argument, I did not see a serious issue witht he way he wrote to exclude him. If you think otherwise though, know that it was not my intention to offend, but only to share points of view that might lead to a free and fair exchange of ideas.

Hope this helps!

Ivan.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#25
Thank You for Your reply, Andrew.

When we use word docs, open them, they can be easily modified and saved accidentally. But, the Acrobat Reader is safe.
You will do your website much more precious if You put Peshitta into Acrobat Reader. This is my personal point of view.
I plan one day to make a program that converts Estrangelo into Qumran caves ashuri script. I believe that this kind of script is the closest to what Jesus and Apostles used. What do You think about this?

Ivan.
Reply
#26
Ivan Pavlovich Ostapyuk Wrote:Thank You for Your reply, Andrew.

When we use word docs, open them, they can be easily modified and saved accidentally. But, the Acrobat Reader is safe.
You will do your website much more precious if You put Peshitta into Acrobat Reader. This is my personal point of view.

AGR:

Okay...I can do that although I am not sure when my webmaster will be able to put it up. In the past though he as been quite efficient. I know of one other place where the Peshitta versions of the Gospels are in ktav ashurri script online, but the other books were never done. I would actually like to see a ktav-ashurri-estrangela interlinear as a powerful teaching tool.

Actually what I really want to see is the "whole megillot" as we say in my family: Estrangela text on top, Ktav Asshuri below that, Latin transliteration below that , original word order English translation below that and on the sides perhaps (looking like a Talmud page almost) syntactical English, and footnotes on the bottom of the page. Just a dream though, but I have done something along those lines when I translated Aramaic Galatians for a colleague in Jerusalem. While I am not at liberty to release that yet because he is using it in his book first, I plan on doing so at a later time, so perhaps you can see what I have in mind on that score.

I plan one day to make a program that converts Estrangelo into Qumran caves ashuri script. I believe that this kind of script is the closest to what Jesus and Apostles used. What do You think about this?

AGR:

I think it is pretty clear that such had to be case for Y'shua and his talmidim in Israel. There is not a doubt in my mind that such is the case, and talmudic evidence even strengthens such a view in my opinion (Mas Shabbath 116a). My personal belief, which has become more detailed over the years, is that the NT autographs are identical to the Peshitta versions we have except that dialectically speaking they would have stuck with "YHWH" rather than "MarYah", but the Aramaic of the two versions of Israel script and Edessan script would read 100% the same.

I also believe very strongly that the Peshitta itself gives powerful testimony to exactly when a tranliteration from Hebrew style to Estrangela would have happened. I have found evidence in the book of Romans and in Acts that certain confusions and mistakes that Zorba makes are only possible with an Estrangela alap-beet. Romans 5:7 is one of these, as the difference between two words is that of an AIH and a NOON in the second to last position in a word. If Romans 5:7 was in Hebrew script at that time, there is no way that confusion could happen. But in Estrangela it most certainly could.

So where that leaves us is:

1) Archaeological evidence by the truckload that the original Nazarenes used ktav-ashurri script in Israel but wrote in the Aramaic language (i.e. Caiaphas' ossuary says BAR and not BEN for "son" and there are dozens of others just like it). Bar Kochba Letters are in Hebrew like script, but some are also in Aramaic, etc., so I think we have this period in history well covered in making the case for ktav ashurri as used in sacred literature by the Nazarenes in Israel. BUT...

2) We also know with equal certainty that ktav ashurri would have been widely read outside of Israel and into the wider Aramaic speaking world that Kefa, Rav Shaul, Yochanan, Ya'akov Ha Tzadik and Matti were ministering to, hence the choice for Estrangela. And so, if we assume that the historical Rav Shaul wrote Romans, and we also assume that Rav Shaul knew the difference between "righteous" and "wicked" which is the precise variant between the Aramaic and the Greek, then the only conclusion possible is that Romans was transliterated into Estrangela before Rav Shaul's death in the year 67. And yet early church fathers and the talmud retain a memory of the ktav ashurri versions of the same text as well.

So, if Romans was put into Estrangela by the year 67, I have to believe that the Gospels and Acts would have been done even earlier, and Acts also has its version of this kind of proof. It is for these reasons and the COE assertion that living apostles brought the originals to their door, that I believe almost all of the NT would have been circulated to them by the year 80.

Hope this helps!
Ivan.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#27
Shlama, Andrew,
thank You for so much sharing of the informatio.
I have a questions about the book of "The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation". I know that You are specialist on this book.
As I understand it includes the 22 books of the eastern tradition text. Am I right?
Now, look at John 1: 18, the book says Mwtm Nm(I cannot generate Ashuri letters, and therefore not sure if I wrote it correctly).When we look at Paul's Peshitta, it says [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Mwtmm[/font]. So, if the same eastern text, why differences?
Next, when we look at Matthew 2:7, the pronunciation of word 'star' is strange for me and sounds as 'kavkva', whereas I look at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi">http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi</a><!-- m --> , it says 'kokba'. So, what kind of pronunciation does this book have?
Also, using the moment I want to ask one more question. Whe we compare all manuscripts of the Peshitto (not Peshitta), are all they identical?
Thank You.
I am more like a disciple in this forum, I do not know much but I want to know.
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fk^rwbw 0ml4 [/font]
Reply
#28
It's OK. Never mind.
Reply
#29
Mr. Roth, There seems to be a difference between the word you use in your article on the Gowra scenario, and the word that appears in the Peshitta interlinear. Can you explain the difference? (hope the font comes out right)

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]
0r@bg

hrbg[/font]

The lexicon seems to say this should be pronounced Gabrah or Gabroh depending on the dialect. How does this become Gowra?

Thank you for you time and your ministry,

In Messiah,
Wayne Ingalls
Reply
#30
Zechariah14 Wrote:Mr. Roth, There seems to be a difference between the word you use in your article on the Gowra scenario, and the word that appears in the Peshitta interlinear. Can you explain the difference? (hope the font comes out right)

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]
0r@bg

hrbg[/font]


The font came out fine Akhi Zechariah. Sorry it took me so long to respond as I just noticed this tonight. The answer to your questin is that the basic lexical form of the word is GOWRA. As it appears in the Peshitta it is in a conjugated stated, third person femine, which drops the aleph and puts in a heh, hence the reading HER GOWRA, meaning Mary's protector-guardian.

To be technical, this is called the CONSTRUCT state. You see, GOWRA appears as spelled in the regular lexical state of the noun, or EMPHATIC. If you want to establish a possesive situation in the emphatic, you need a DALET to function as "of", so:

miltha d'Alaha = Word of God

In the CONSTRUCT state the last letter of the first word, alap, is "knocked down" to make way for a heh that is "nailed on". Then the dalet, whcih was "of", is "cleared away", at least, that's how I remember it as "construct". The end result:

miltheh Alaha = God's word

Grammar techicalities though are not my strength so I defer to Akhi Paul if I did not explain this right.

Next question...

The lexicon seems to say this should be pronounced Gabrah or Gabroh depending on the dialect. How does this become Gowra?

AGR:

In most cases the BEYT (B) is pronounced as "B", hence, GAHB-RA. However, in a few cases the BEYT can be turned into a "V" or a "W" sound. This is true with John's father. In the Greek he is called ZEBDAIOS, because they assume the BEYT is "B" and add -aios. The Peshitta dialect however turns that BEYT into a W (see Akhan Paul's interlinear), so John's father is ZAWDI (less of course the Greek "aios" whcih it would not have in Aramaic).

Same thing with GOWRA, the BEYT takes on the WAW property. As to why the lexicon says what it does, I don't know. Akhi Paul might have some insight as to why Dr. Kiraz did that, although it is worth noting that Kiraz does nto speak the Eastern Aramaic dialect of the Peshitta.

Hope this helps and again sorry for not seeing your question earlier.



Thank you for you time and your ministry,

In Messiah,
Wayne Ingalls

AGR:

My pleasure. And by the way, check what I say against the best Aramaci grammar on the web: <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.assyrianlanguage.com">http://www.assyrianlanguage.com</a><!-- w -->, which you can also access from the links section at the left. Good luck!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)