Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I now have a website!
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
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
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
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

Messages In This Thread
I now have a website! - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-17-2004, 11:45 PM
[No subject] - by judge - 03-18-2004, 12:27 AM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 03-18-2004, 03:57 PM
Re: I now have a website! - by The Thadman - 03-20-2004, 06:44 AM
Re - by Larry Kelsey - 03-20-2004, 11:41 PM
Re: Website update and thanks! - by abudar2000 - 03-21-2004, 11:43 AM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 03-21-2004, 08:35 PM
[No subject] - by Rob - 03-21-2004, 08:46 PM
Akhi Dave - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-22-2004, 02:43 AM
1979 Syriac Bible - by gbausc - 03-22-2004, 03:37 PM
Website update! - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-23-2004, 01:21 AM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 03-23-2004, 05:46 PM
AWESOME! - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-24-2004, 04:02 AM
Re: AWESOME! - by Paul Younan - 03-24-2004, 04:36 AM
Re: Website update and thanks! - by judge - 03-25-2004, 10:56 AM
Ancient Evidence - by gbausc - 03-25-2004, 04:07 PM
I remember - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-26-2004, 04:26 AM
Re: Ancient Evidence - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-26-2004, 04:50 AM
Re: Ancient Evidence - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-26-2004, 04:53 AM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 03-27-2004, 01:52 PM
Mark 5:26 - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 03-27-2004, 10:21 PM
[No subject] - by Ivan Pavlovich Ostapyuk - 07-03-2004, 10:45 PM
My website - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 07-04-2004, 02:30 AM
[No subject] - by Ivan Pavlovich Ostapyuk - 07-04-2004, 04:46 AM
Peshitta Adobe pdf - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 07-04-2004, 01:30 PM
[No subject] - by Ivan Pavlovich Ostapyuk - 07-22-2004, 04:50 AM
[No subject] - by Ivan Pavlovich Ostapyuk - 08-07-2004, 11:39 PM
Gowra question - by Zechariah14 - 08-11-2004, 04:15 PM
Re: Gowra question - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 08-23-2004, 11:28 PM
Re: Gowra question - by Zechariah14 - 08-26-2004, 12:32 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)