Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Caught RED-HANDED

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #876
Help Print Share

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

Caught RED-HANDED

Feb-09-2002 at 12:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

Shlama Akhay,

If you ever wanted proof that Acts was originally written in Aramaic and that the Greek is merely a translation - BOY do I have something for you! :c

In the Greek version of Acts 2:24, we read with astonishment:

"Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

Now - if you're sitting there scratching your head and wondering what this saying means - that's good - you should be because it makes no sense at all. How, exactly, is death painful?

Well, here comes the Aramaic to the rescue (drum roll, please.)

In Aramaic, this verse reads:

"Whom God raised up, having loosed the hylbx of Sheol, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

Now, everyone knows that Sheol is normally translated into Greek as "death" or "grave" - so we should expect that that occurred in this verse.

What is so unexpected is how the Greek translators of Acts totally missed the proper translation of hylbx

hylbx comes from a root that can mean "pain/travail/corruption" (#6167) - and in fact it's used with that meaning in verses like Acts 2:27 (just 3 verses from the one in question) or Acts 13:34-37. This is the majority reading - "pain/travail/corruption."

However, there is a minority meaning to hylbx, or more accurately, the lexeme of this word which is fbx (#6165)

That meaning is "rope" or "cable" - as used in Yukhanan 2:15 and Acts 27:32 (with the exact same lexeme & word spelling) - THAT'S THE MEANING THAT BELONGS IN ACTS 2:24 !!!

The verse should read:

"Whom God raised up, having loosed the ropes of Sheol, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

How much more sense does THAT make? Here, Shimon Keepa is saying that Sheol could not hold him - because God raised him up - having loosed the figurative ropes that held Him there.

Can't blame Zorba, though - even Lamsa missed this one. :c

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

1. The Hebrew Witness !!!

Feb-09-2002 at 01:43 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhay,

Not surprisingly, this very same word ALSO exists in Hebrew (Strongs #2256) and also has the same broad meaning as the Aramaic cognate! ("pain/travail" and "rope/cord") !!!

See this most wonderful word in action in the Hebrew bible:

Where it means "rope":


  • Joshua 2:15
  • 2 Samuel 17:13
  • 2 Samuel 22:6 - Where the verse reads - "The CORDS of SHEOL surrounded me; the snares of death confronted me!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Greek Acts? PA-LEEZE!

:c


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

2. RE: The Hebrew Witness !!!

Feb-09-2002 at 02:36 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Glad we could help! That's what it means to be "just across the River".

This one is beaut. We are going to have to start catloguing the locations of all these great proofs in proper chronological order.

Shlama,

Andrew

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

3. Psalms 18:5 & 116:3 !!!!

Feb-09-2002 at 03:04 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhay!

More references - the same saying as in 2 Samuel 22:6 - this time in the Psalms:

"The cords (Khebel) of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me." (Psalms 18:5)

"The cords (Khebel) of death encompassed me, And the terrors of Sheol came upon me; I found distress and sorrow" (Psalms 116:3)

I love it! To demonstrate how the Peshitta is the only version, in existence anywhere, that preserves this original reading in Acts 2:24 AND to demonstrate - without a shadow of a doubt - how our Greek buddy mistranslated it......OY VEY!

This is too much adrenaline for me!

I'm going to go and sit in a dark room for a while - until I manage to calm down.

Ciao.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

4. Our buddy Zorba....

Feb-09-2002 at 04:09 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama all--

Here's an idea. When something like this emerges, a good approach is to check to see when the earliest GREEK MSS of that reading emerged. Then, obviously, we can say the Peshitta is older than it if the original reading is established there.

For example, when the whole GOWRA/BAALI issue broke a while back, the first thing I did was find a webpage that was run by a Greek primacists showing how old their fragments were. I have since lost the link--wish I still had it--but I made note of the fact that the oldest fragment of Greek Matti 1 was Oxyrynchus Papyrus #46- dated to about 150 CE. Therefore, I concluded that if GOWRA can be proved to mean "father" beyond any doubt that Peshitta must be older still.

Then there is the curious case of Origen quoting Hebrews 2:9-10 with a version that is only in Peshitta. Origen lived in the late second to early third century and the mss had obviously been around long enough to circulate to Rome. I would still like to know if the oldest Hebrews 2:10 mss fragment is older than that, but it seems we have proof that Hebrews in this form also circulated early. Also, of course, since Matti is the first book in the canon and Hebrews the last, THAT MEANS THE WHOLE COLLECTION HAD CIRCULATED THAT EARLY.

So Greek is our buddy. We love him. The older their mss with the bad readings are, the older the Peshitta is with the good ones.

Baklivah anyone?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

7. RE: Our buddy Zorba....

Feb-10-2002 at 11:12 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
Shlama Akhi Andrew,

You bring up a fascinating point. To my knowledge - all Greek manuscripts, including the oldest Greek versions of Acts - read "pains of death" in this verse. The Peshitta must be the source text of all the Greek versions.

How can the Christian world go on and ignore this evidence any longer? How much more proof do we need?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

5. RE: The Hebrew Witness !!!

Feb-09-2002 at 09:39 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Very nice, Akhi Paul!

Keep up the good work!
The parallels in Tanakh with fetters and death/Sheol are surely a'plenty.

This same Hebrew word is used in Jonah 1:6 for the ships captain. It is "rav ha-khovel", which is literally, "man in charge of the rope(s)"!

I second Akhi Andrew's motion, let a list be compiled!

Thanks again,

Shalom!
Rob

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

8. RE: The Hebrew Witness !!!

Feb-10-2002 at 11:25 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
Thanks Akhi Rob,

I'd love to compile a list - we've got a forum here with over 1,000 messages spanning nearly 2 years.

Who's going to sift through all the messages and pull out the gems?

I wish I had kept track of the really good ones.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Dean
 
Send email to DeanSend private message to DeanAdd Dean to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

6. RE: The Hebrew Witness !!!

Feb-09-2002 at 09:39 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Last edited by Dean on Feb-09-2002 at 09:46 PM (CT)

Incredible find Akhi Paul,

This puts Greek Acts on par with the Septuagint.

2 Sam 22:6 was translated into Greek making the same mistake Zorba did in Acts! -By using the same Greek root "odeen" which only means birth pains, sorrow, pain, travail etc.

Keep up the good work Akha ... this now demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that Acts is also translation Greek.

-Dean

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

9. RE: The Hebrew Witness !!!

Feb-10-2002 at 11:25 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
Shlama Akhi Dean,

That's incredible that the LXX makes the same mistake in 2 Samuel.....I wonder about the examples in Psalms?

No wonder the Jews in Jerusalem proclaimed a period of mourning to protest the creation of the LXX!

It's painfully obvious that the Greek (both the LXX and the GNT) is a mistranslation here.

It's also impossible to imagine Shimon Keepa not knowing that the original said "cords" and not "pains." Especially when we read the context of Acts 2:24 - it becomes clear that Shimon's statement was conveying the image of "loosing" a "prisoner" being held in a dungeon-type place - which was always how Sheol was portrayed in all Semitic literature!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Dean
 
Send email to DeanSend private message to DeanAdd Dean to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

15. RE: LXX

Feb-11-2002 at 12:14 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
Boker Tov Ahki Paul,

Psalm 18:4 (cords of Death) in the LXX -its actually Psalm 17:5, has Birth Pains.

Psalm 18:5 (cords of Sheol) in the LXX (Psalm 17:6) has Birth Pains

Psalm 116:3 (cords of Death) in the LXX (Psalm 114:3) has Birth Pains as well

-Dean

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

18. RE: LXX

Feb-11-2002 at 02:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #15
 
Erev Tov Ahki Dean,

>
>Psalm 18:4 (cords of Death) in
>the LXX -its actually Psalm
>17:5, has Birth Pains.
>
>Psalm 18:5 (cords of Sheol) in
>the LXX (Psalm 17:6) has
>Birth Pains
>
>Psalm 116:3 (cords of Death) in
>the LXX (Psalm 114:3) has
>Birth Pains as well
>
>-Dean
Perhaps you did not understand my point either. Do we credit this 'mistranslation' to original speakers of Greek or Hebrew?'

L'hitraot
Yaqub

Print Top
Dean
 
Send email to DeanSend private message to DeanAdd Dean to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

25. RE: LXX

Feb-11-2002 at 07:17 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #18
 
Shalom Yacov,

I would say this error was caused by native Greek speakers who were not familiar enough with the subtle nuances of the original Hebrew/Aramaic texts they were working with.

Leyitraot,

-Dean

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

27. RE: LXX

Feb-11-2002 at 04:59 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #25
 
Shalom Dean,
>
>I would say this error was
>caused by native Greek speakers
>who were not familiar enough
>with the subtle nuances of
>the original Hebrew/Aramaic texts they
>were working with.
>

I apologize. I didn't realize native Gr. speakers were even allowed to participate in the translation process.It was my assumption that those most skilled in Tanakh were recruited.

L'hit
Yaqub

Print Top
Dean
 
Send email to DeanSend private message to DeanAdd Dean to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

30. RE: LXX

Feb-12-2002 at 11:57 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #27
 
Boker Tov, Ya'acov,

Why not!

Even today, dont we have native English speakers working for... say ... the Jewish Publication Society, or Soncino Press ... producing English
translations of the Tanakh?

Can a non-native English speaker even begin to produce an English translation of any Semitic Text?

What makes you think that a non-Greek speaker could have even come close to producing the LXX?

-Dean

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

32. RE: LXX

Feb-12-2002 at 03:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #30
 
Erev Tov Akhi Dean,

I just did not consider that any of those scribes select from among the scholars would begin to have a heathen language as their primary tongue.

It was my impression from Akh Andrew that Gr. being the tongue of the Goyim would be avoided at all costs.

You bring up a valid point about translators today. Commitees are made up of 'experts' whose primary tongue was not the Biblical languae. In fact generations removed and oceans distance. How much more then were they acquainted with Tanakh.

I could imagine errors from Gr to Heb more so than from Heb to Gr in their case.

Shalom,
Yaqub

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

10. Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-11-2002 at 09:15 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Akhay,


>"Whom God raised up, having loosed
>the hylbx
>of Sheol, because it was
>not possible that He should
>be held by it."
>
>Now, everyone knows that Sheol is
>normally translated into Greek as
>"death" or "grave"

"hades" is the Gr. synonym

>What is so unexpected is how
>the Greek translators of Acts
>totally missed the proper translation
>of hylbx
>
>
>hylbx comes from
>a root that can mean
>"pain/travail/corruption" (#6167) - and in
>fact it's used with that
>meaning in verses like Acts
>2:27 (just 3 verses from
>the one in question) or
>Acts 13:34-37. This is
>the majority reading - "pain/travail/corruption."
>
>
>However, there is a minority meaning
>to hylbx,
>or more accurately, the lexeme
>of this word which is
>fbx (#6165)
>
>
>That meaning is "rope" or "cable"
>- as used in Yukhanan
>2:15 and Acts 27:32 (with
>the exact same lexeme &
>word spelling) - THAT'S THE
>MEANING THAT BELONGS IN ACTS
>2:24 !!!
>
>The verse should read:
>
>"Whom God raised up, having loosed
>the ropes of Sheol, because
>it was not possible that
>He should be held by
>it."
>
Or as the RSV reads 'cords of death'
We read in NIDNT and TDNT that 'odin' ('odis' in CL Gr.) was used metaphorically in many ways.
It has been correctly stated that even LXX translates Heb. 'khbl' with 'odin'. In fact someone actually stated it reads just like LXX on this forum.
So then if 72 Jewish Scholars translated 'khbl' to 'odin' it stands to reason the NT would do the same in an identical or similar phrase.

>Can't blame Zorba, though - even
>Lamsa missed this one. :c

bwq9y 0ml4

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

11. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-11-2002 at 09:28 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #10
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov!

>Or as the RSV reads 'cords
>of death'

I just checked on the www.crosswalk.com website and the version called Revised Standard Version (RSV) has the reading "the pangs of death."

No English version I've checked (12 or so) has the correct reading here.

>We read in NIDNT and TDNT
>that 'odin' ('odis' in CL
>Gr.) was used metaphorically in
>many ways.

Can you point to non-biblical literature where this Greek word means "cord?"


>It has been correctly stated that
>even LXX translates Heb. 'khbl'
>with 'odin'. In fact someone
>actually stated it reads just
>like LXX on this forum.

Right - even the LXX was mistranslated from the original Hebrew which could mean either "pain" or "cord."

Ever wonder why the Jews hated that version so much that they proclaimed a period of mourning after it's creation?

>
>So then if 72 Jewish Scholars
>translated 'khbl' to 'odin' it
>stands to reason the NT
>would do the same in
>an identical or similar phrase.
>

Even 72 Jewish Scholars could make mistakes. Even Lamsa made this same mistake in Acts 2:24.

But I can guarantee you that Shimon Keepa did not say "pains" and Luke did not write "pains."

There's only one reasonable explanation to all of this.

This mistake had to have happened the same exact way the mistake in the Septuagint happened - the GNT is no less a translation than the LXX is.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

12. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-11-2002 at 10:25 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #11
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,
>
>>Or as the RSV reads 'cords
>>of death'
>
>I just checked on the www.crosswalk.com
>website and the version called
>Revised Standard Version (RSV) has
>the reading "the pangs of
>death."

In reference to the OT- LXX ordeal.
Ps 18:5 cords of sheol in LXX is Hades.


>No English version I've checked (12
>or so) has the correct
>reading here.

No as they all translate Gr. 'odin'
>
>>We read in NIDNT and TDNT
>>that 'odin' ('odis' in CL
>>Gr.) was used metaphorically in
>>many ways.
>
>Can you point to non-biblical literature
>where this Greek word means
>"cord?"

No akhi and that was not my point. In Cl Gr. there is reference to being in the grip of pain, twisting & writhing. But the idea is always in recollection of birth pains.

>>It has been correctly stated that
>>even LXX translates Heb. 'khbl'
>>with 'odin'. In fact someone
>>actually stated it reads just
>>like LXX on this forum.
>
>Right - even the LXX was
>mistranslated from the original Hebrew
>which could mean either "pain"
>or "cord."
>
>Ever wonder why the Jews hated
>that version so much that
>they proclaimed a period of
>mourning after it's creation?

Yet it was Hebrew scholars that set the precedent the Gr. 'translator' only followed the rules. This is the issue. The Ps 18:5 passage someone referenced, where RSV has 'khbl'='cords' and LXX 'odines hadou' or 'pains of hades', is the measuring stick that experts in Hebrew set as the precedent and chose the Gr word that would be the standard.

>>
>>So then if 72 Jewish Scholars
>>translated 'khbl' to 'odin' it
>>stands to reason the NT
>>would do the same in
>>an identical or similar phrase.
>>
>Even 72 Jewish Scholars could make
>mistakes. Even
>Lamsa made this same mistake
>in Acts 2:24.
>
Akhi. Surely they knew their own language as well as you know Aramaic. So the issue is did they intentionally choose a word that would be misleading or would they do their very best to communicate to the 'Heathens' what GOD has to say.

>But I can guarantee you that
>Shimon Keepa did not say
>"pains"
Absolutely. I agree

and Luke did not
write "pains."

That is a tough one to 'guarantee'.

>There's only one reasonable explanation to
>all of this.
>
>This mistake had to have happened
>the same exact way the
>mistake in the Septuagint happened
>- the GNT is no
>less a translation than the
>LXX is.

I respect your opinion in the matter.

bwq9y 0ml4

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

13. translation

Feb-11-2002 at 11:36 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #12
 
Shalom Akhay,

My view is based on the fundamental belief that a Semitic mindset is essential to the understanding of Semitic texts.

While my study of Aramaic is still in its infancy stages, I believe I can speak fairly knowledgably about the Hebrew Bible/OT (TaNaK), and the use of word play and other poetic forms that contribute to the integrity of the text.

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, one will come across words that can have two or even three different meanings. This is no accident. It is especially seen in a form that has been recently termed 'janus parallelism'.

These and other creative uses of the language are not translatable, just as John Marucci shows in the 'More Rhymes' post. A translator has to make a decision that the native reader does not have to make, and that is "what word am I going to use?"

The Semitic mind can just smile and enjoy the richness of the language and His Word...

In Yeshua,
Rob


Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

17. RE: translation

Feb-11-2002 at 02:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #13
 
Maneshma Rob,


>These and other creative uses of
>the language are not translatable,
>just as John Marucci shows
>in the 'More Rhymes' post.
>A translator has to make
>a decision that the native
>reader does not have to
>make, and that is "what
>word am I going to
>use?"
>The Semitic mind can just smile
>and enjoy the richness of
>the language and His Word...
>
In fact akhi Rob that is the hurdle which the Western Church has to make in order to understand even the GNT.

It too is a semitic document and cannot be understood properly outside its original semitic socio-cultural setting.

As the Hebrew-dialect of Aramaic underlies the GNT, those who want to properly understand the GNT must study Aramaic and Hebrew.

However this does not mean the LXX did not influence the early Church. In fact it did and some quotes do come from extant LXX texts that vary from MT.

Eliminating the influence of our semitic roots is far more severe than ignoring LXX influence but either way something is still missing.

B'Yeshua
Yaqub

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

28. Yacov!

Feb-12-2002 at 04:59 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #17
 
Sh'lomi tov, todah Akhi, kol b'seder kan. Gam atah, ani qoveh.

The LXX offers many valuable insights for me personally in the study of Biblical Hebrew - how difficult passages were interpreted/translated, and even how Hebrew words were transliterated gives insight to the preservation of certain proto-semitic phonemes.

I hope to someday do a thorough comparision with OT quotes - with Targumim, Peshitta, LXX, GNT, Tanak, etc... but first I must obtain a better grip on the fundamentals of the various languages. Funny, but I think the study of early Islamic writings offers a valuable perspective as well, where different exegetes quote NT, Yeshua, etc...

I believe much of this material was known by most people by memory, and that can contribute to variations as well. I'm sure Peter didn't have a scroll there in front of him. He's communicating (via Holy Spirit) the gist of the message.


On an 'aside'...

I'd like your take regarding the Greek word 'sebomai', and various forms of this 'sebo' root which pops up all over the GNT - usually 'godly/liness', or with alpha priv. as 'ungodly'- also 'fear', 'reverence', etc...

Anyway, a certain Messianic Jewish teacher is declaring that this 'seb' root comes from the Hebrew 'shabbat', and is related to other Heb roots such as 'yashav', 'shuv', and 'shav'a' (all with the 'shin-bet' element).

This makes for some creative interpretations of scriptures, yet I can show two things:

* the 'sebo' root is used all over in Classical Greek with the same exact meaning, (very non-Semitic environments), and,

* in the TaNaK itself, comparing Hebrew with the Aramaic of Daniel, I can show how the 'shin' we see in 'yashav' and 'shuv' is not the same as the 'shin' in 'shav'a', because the former two become 'yathav' and 'thuv' in Aramaic. Including Targumim, we see that 'Shabbat' retains the 'sh' sound as well. This points to what Semitists call 'proto-semitic phonemes', which entails differences between Aramaic, Ugaritic, Arabic, Akkadian, and Hebrew.

When confronted with this evidence however, this particular teacher claims to be using 'intuition' led by the Spirit, and casts me away as an 'academic' who is rationalizing against the scriptures.

Unfortunately, (this teacher and I used to be very close), because I'm not following with him down this particular path of interpretation (upon which he has built specific doctrines) he believes that I have turned my back on YHWH. This saddens me greatly, and I'm not sure that we'll ever be reconciled.

Anyway, you sound as if you've got some specialty in the study of Greek, and I'd appreciate your (or even anybody else's) opinion/insight on the matter.

Thank you very much.

B'shem Yeshua, Adoneinu uMeshikheinu

Rob


Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

31. Rob

Feb-12-2002 at 01:54 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #28
 
Todah Rabah Akhi Rob,

Gom shlomi tov aval kol lo b'seder ky bati lo tov. Hy khala b'mita 9ym khom az ani b'bayit ha'yom.
(9=ayin)I Hope that was understandable. Sorry it has been 10 years since my last Hebrew course with G'veret Mullican.


>The LXX offers many valuable insights
>for me personally in the
>study of Biblical Hebrew -
>how difficult passages were interpreted/translated,
>and even how Hebrew words
>were transliterated gives insight to
>the preservation of certain proto-semitic
>phonemes.

I personally would never use the LXX except for comparison purposes. However we have so much information avaiable on MT translations and MT that does not force me to use LXX so as to become acquainted with HIS word.

I'd like your take regarding the
>Greek word 'sebomai', and various
>forms of this 'sebo' root
>which pops up all over
>the GNT - usually 'godly/liness',
>or with alpha priv. as
>'ungodly'- also 'fear', 'reverence',
>etc...
>
>Anyway, a certain Messianic Jewish teacher
>is declaring that this 'seb'
>root comes from the Hebrew
>'shabbat', and is related to
>other Heb roots such as
>'yashav', 'shuv', and 'shav'a' (all
>with the 'shin-bet' element).

I'll be glad to research the etymology. Have you checked out TDNT or NIDNT? Both give Classical, LXX, and GNT uses.


>* the 'sebo' root is used
>all over in Classical Greek
>with the same exact meaning,
>(very non-Semitic environments),

Used in worship of the Hellenistic pantheon?


* in the TaNaK itself, comparing
>Hebrew with the Aramaic of
>Daniel, I can show how
>the 'shin' we see in
>'yashav' and 'shuv' is not
>the same as the 'shin'
>in 'shav'a', because the former
>two become 'yathav' and 'thuv'
>in Aramaic.

Arabic also. Heb 'shalosh' and 'shlosha' is 't'leta' in Ar. and 'sheva' becomes 'sabba' in Ar. Also 'shaken' of Heb becomes 'sakin' in Ar.

which he has
>built specific doctrines) he believes
>that I have turned my
>back on YHWH. This saddens
>me greatly, and I'm not
>sure that we'll ever be
>reconciled.

Sorry to hear that.

Give me some time to research that and I'll let you know what I have found.

L'hiyt Raot
Yaqub

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

33. Rob

Feb-13-2002 at 00:45 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #28
 
Akhi Rob,

>Anyway, a certain Messianic Jewish teacher
>is declaring that this 'seb'
>root comes from the Hebrew
>'shabbat', and is related to
>other Heb roots such as
>'yashav', 'shuv', and 'shav'a' (all
>with the 'shin-bet' element).

Wow. There may be something to this as the Gr alphabet was adopted from Semitic consonants. This was known to me but after reading that Homer, in the Geometric period, used the 'seb-' root, in reference to 'apart'. In the Jewish culture isn't the original intent, a day set apart? Also I found that Hesiod also used 'seb-' root similarly.

>* the 'sebo' root is used
>all over in Classical Greek
>with the same exact meaning,
>(very non-Semitic environments), and,

I have not had a chance to research classical period yet as I have only scratched the surface in Archaic and Geometric.

Is the Prof saying this was a loan word?

It is used most frquently in the middle voice. The middle voice expresses what is in ones interest. Is there any reason you know of that would exclude the word from having its roots in 'shabat'?

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

34. RE: Rob

Feb-14-2002 at 05:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #33
 
Well, according to Liddell & Scott (9th edition) -the really HUGE one- it is used (mostly in present tense) for:

to feel awe,
to fear,
feel shame,
pay homage to Zeus
admire,
pay tribute,
pay honor or respect to,
to honor parents or gods,
to dread or fear to do a thing,
to worship, honor,
to devote oneself to a new wife

with alpha priv:
disloyalty to the emperor
impious
act profanely
commit sacrilege

The ref's I looked up were from 6th to 4th C. BCE.
I don't claim any great skill with Greek, however, and so the names given don't mean anything to me. Certainly it is used by Homer and Plato.

It is used a handful of times in LXX, mostly as a translation of yod-resh-aleph, 'to fear' - never in any context of Shabbat. The Greek transliteration of Shabbat, as it is in GNT, starts sigma-alpha-beta-beta (as opposed to sigma-epsilon-beta). But in the LXX, the Hebrew verb shin-bet-tav is translated into Greek with 'pauw' (p=pi, w=omega).

I'm sure you're aware of its use in GNT.

What I don't buy is that (assuming the Apostles wrote in Greek) they had 'sabbath keeping' specifically in mind when using this word. Even if we say Yeshua spoke Greek, in Matt 15:9 he quotes Isaiah, "in vain do they worship me" - here, 'worship' in the Hebrew is "yar'a".

This man would translate this passage:
"in vain do they keep sabbath to me", etc... (which may be true in a general sense), but that is not what Isaiah said. Can we go back and translate all the yar'a occurences to 'keep sabbath'?

But, if Yeshua quoted the Scriptures in Hebrew (my viewpoint), there is nothing to even discuss.

Peshitta uses dalet-chet-lamed, and the negative (as with Hebrew) is resh, shin, 'ayin.

Certainly worship occured on (but in no way was limited to) the Sabbath. This word 'worship' in Aramaic being from the root samekh-gimel-dalet (from whence 'mosque' was derived).

Like I said originally, this 'seb'='sabbat' idea makes for some very creative interpretations of scripture, but I think they need to be viewed in light of a broader understanding of the use of the word.

Funny things occur, like the Hebrew anashim (men) and nashim (women) come from entirely different backgrounds, although at first glance you'd almost swear they were identical (save the aleph).

Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to look at the idea. May your daughter be well!

In Yeshua,
Rob

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

35. RE: Rob

Feb-14-2002 at 01:02 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #34
 
Akhi Rob,


>The ref's I looked up were
>from 6th to 4th C.
>BCE.

Classical period will take some time.
Sorry I still haven't looked at that yet.

>I don't claim any great skill
>with Greek, however, and so
>the names given don't mean
>anything to me. Certainly it
>is used by Homer and
>Plato.

The interesting aspect is that Homer made use of the root quite a while before the classical and LXX period.

>
>It is used a handful of
>times in LXX, mostly as
>a translation of yod-resh-aleph, 'to
>fear' - never in any
>context of Shabbat.
The Greek
>transliteration of Shabbat, as it
>is in GNT, starts sigma-alpha-beta-beta
>(as opposed to sigma-epsilon-beta). But
>in the LXX, the Hebrew
>verb shin-bet-tav is translated into
>Greek with 'pauw' (p=pi, w=omega).
>I'm sure you're aware of its
>use in GNT.

Pauw='To cease'
LXX transliterates Shabat as 'sabbath'also.


>What I don't buy is that
>(assuming the Apostles wrote in
>Greek) they had 'sabbath keeping'
>specifically in mind when using
>this word.

'Sebeomai'?
Sorry I don't follow.
Also, perhaps only one apostle 'originally' wrote in Gr.(This is what I think anyway)

Even if we
>say Yeshua spoke Greek,
in Matt 15:9 he quotes Isaiah,
>"in vain do they worship
>me" - here, 'worship' in
>the Hebrew is "yar'a".
>
>This man would translate this passage:
>
>"in vain do they keep sabbath
>to me", etc... (which may
>be true in a general
>sense), but that is not
>what Isaiah said. Can we
>go back and translate all
>the yar'a occurences to 'keep
>sabbath'?

I think I see what your prof is saying.

However 'sebomai'does not mean simply to keep the Shabat.
Example 'sebomai' used in present participle would have to be interpreted in Acts 13:43&50 as:
...sabbath keeping proselytes... (devout proselyttes)
...sabbath keeping women....(devout women)

Acts 16:14 'she revered God' would not be translatable in the accusative form.
How would he translate this?


>But, if Yeshua quoted the Scriptures
>in Hebrew (my viewpoint), there
>is nothing to even discuss.


>Peshitta uses dalet-chet-lamed, and the negative
>(as with Hebrew) is resh,
>shin, 'ayin.

Also Gen 20:11 has ...NO FEAR...as 'ayin yirat'.

>Certainly worship occured on (but in
>no way was limited to)
>the Sabbath. This word 'worship'
>in Aramaic being from the
>root samekh-gimel-dalet (from whence 'mosque'
>was derived).

I did not know that. I'll ask my Lenonese friend about the Arabic root. Is it 'sin, qaf, dad'in Ar.?

>Like I said originally, this 'seb'='sabbat'
>idea makes for some very
>creative interpretations of scripture, but
>I think they need to
>be viewed in light of
>a broader understanding of the
>use of the word. >
>Funny things occur, like the Hebrew
>anashim (men) and nashim (women)
>come from entirely different backgrounds,
>although at first glance you'd
>almost swear they were identical
>(save the aleph).

I don't undertand, 'Ish' and 'Isha' are similar. What is the backgound?

>Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to
>look at the idea. May
>your daughter be well!

Todah. Hy yoter tov ha'yom, ayinak khom.

Shlama,
Yaqub


Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

37. RE: Rob

Feb-15-2002 at 09:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #35
 
>Acts 16:14 'she revered God' would
>not be translatable in the
>accusative form.
>How would he translate this?

He would say 'keep sabbath to God'. Realize the person teaching this is not a professor, or even someone who has grasp on Greek grammar! (maybe not even Hebrew, for that matter). He would say 'its the intuitive sense' of the passage.

>
>>Certainly worship occured on (but in
>>no way was limited to)
>>the Sabbath. This word 'worship'
>>in Aramaic being from the
>>root samekh-gimel-dalet (from whence 'mosque'
>>was derived).
>
>I did not know that. I'll
>ask my Lenonese friend about
>the Arabic root. Is it
>'sin, qaf, dad'in Ar.?

I talked to the Islamic Prof at school about the Aramaic s-g-d, and he told me as an aside that 'mosque' (noun form=place to worship/prostrate oneself) has the same root.
Onkelos uses s-g-d to translate he-sh-ta-kha-ve-h.


>I don't undertand, 'Ish' and 'Isha'
>are similar. What is the
>backgound?

called 'heteroclytic paradigm' (sp?).

protosemitic for ish is )y$ --> where )=aleph and $=shin

for isha, it is )T --> where T=underlined t phoneme. I'll have to check, but I think that there might be a 'nun' in the middle. The Heb. isha has a dagesh in the shin, which is the assimilated 'nun' that we see preserved in the written Aramaic form. (The Aramaic T is a $ in Hebrew)

for anashim, it is )n$

for nashim, n$y


There is a hapax in Hebrews 4:9, 'sabbatismos', which is clearly a 'Greekization' of Heb 'shabbat', but as for 'sebia' and others, I just don't think so!

Shalom,
Rob

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

38. RE: Rob

Feb-15-2002 at 09:59 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #37
 
Shlama Akhi Rob,

I talked to the Islamic Prof at school about the Aramaic s-g-d, and he told me as an aside that 'mosque' (noun form=place to worship/prostrate oneself) has the same root.
Onkelos uses s-g-d to translate he-sh-ta-kha-ve-h.

The good professor is right on the money. In Aramaic "SGD", usually translated into the English "Worship" - literally means "to prostrate oneself towards....something."

So when you find in the Aramaic text of the Peshitta the following type of phrase - "w'SGDYN l'ALAHA" - it literally means - "And they prostrated themselves towards (the Lamed Proclitic) God."

In the Semitic practice of the Church of the East, this type of worship is also called "Tsloota" (literally "Prayer") in which the people bow towards the altar in much the same way Muslims get on their knees and bow towards Mecca.

While that's about all Eastern Christianity and Islam have in common - it is significant in that it demonstrates how deeply rooted this "prostration" is in Semitic religious practice and how Islam inherited this practice from the surrounding Christian environment prior to the Islamic conquest.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

47. Sebomai

Feb-19-2002 at 09:25 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #37
 
Akhi Rob,

The 'seb-' root having ties to 'Shabat' is inconclusive. I cannot for sure say that Homer did or did not borrow from Shabat to form the root 'seb-'.

Initially it meant to shrink away, or back, as from fear. Later in classical times it took on the meaning to be 'devout'. The prev. eu- intensifies as the alpha negates. The Church father Eu-SEB-ius, is the original reverend as his name means reverence.

LXX, the beginning of Koine, uses it to translate Heb yara which carried to the GNT

The GNT uses it in combination with Theos in reference to "God fearers", 'theosebes'. It is used in adjective form to mean a devout kind of people.

However akh Rob it is a far stretch to translate the 'seb' root or its cognates 'to keep the Shabat'. It means simply 'to be devout, to reverence ,to be godly, etc. These are things we strive to be everyday of the week'

>>I did not know that. I'll
>>ask my Lenonese friend about
>>the Arabic root. Is it
>>'sin, qaf, dad'in Ar.?
>
>I talked to the Islamic Prof
>at school about the Aramaic
>s-g-d, and he told me
>as an aside that 'mosque'
>(noun form=place to worship/prostrate oneself)

Yes, my Lebonese friend says the Ar. term 'sjd' means to 'postrate' and the "m'sjd"-mosque is the place of postration.

Salam Alekum,
Yaqub

Print Top
judge
 
Send email to judgeSend private message to judgeAdd judge to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

19. hebrew mindset

Feb-11-2002 at 02:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #13
 
Hi all!
Although I believe the NT was written in Aramaic, one of the things i wonder is "what difference does this make"? Surely I can still 'hear and obey', whichever version I read.
But if there is something to be gained here then I don't want to miss out!
Can anyone help out here? Anmd any thoughts on the following article I read yesterday on this topic?

http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/2002feb/schlissel.shtml

Peace..................Michael

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

22. RE: hebrew mindset

Feb-11-2002 at 05:31 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #19
 
Shlama Akhi Michael "min takhet" (from down-under)

It makes a big difference!

No, our salvation is not dependent on it - but our accurate view of what's actually being said in the scriptures is greatly clarified by reading the language the gospel was first preached in.

Otherwise - what does Acts 2:24 mean to you if you're reading the NIV ?

The Greek has a mistranslation of an Aramaic word that means "cord" or "pain" - the Greek text chooses the latter, erroneous, meaning.

Now you can see the depth of what Peter was conveying - how Sheol is a prison and we are all prisoners who are set free - our cords "loosed" - by the redemptive act of our Sacrifice.

The Greek is so watered down and mistranslated it doesn't even come close to conveying the same word-image in this verse!

Ultimately - you're right - it makes no big difference which version you read.

However - those who yearn to "eat these words" want to be sure the flavor is just as the Chef intended.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

14. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-11-2002 at 11:36 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #12
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter too - but this one is too much to attempt to explain away casually.

If we throw away the concept of divine inspiration and allow Luke himself to make these types of errors - sure, we could say that Luke misquoted and mistranslated the words of Peter here in this verse.

Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is best. Luke wrote Acts in Aramaic - and the Greek translator(s) made the same mistake even the 72 and Lamsa made.

Zorba read "KhBLA" and thought "Pain" - when it is Pain-fully obvious that the correct translation has to be "Cord" - just like the Psalms that Peter was quoting say in the original Hebrew.

The fact is that all English versions of the NT read "pain" in Acts 2:24 - and they're all wrong. They're wrong because they rely on Greek manuscripts that cannot be attributed to Luke - Luke would have known the correct meaning of what Peter was saying.

Only the Peshitta has the correct reading. And the mistake could only have been made by going from Aramaic to Greek.

I don't believe Luke made that mistake. I believe those who translated his work later made that mistake.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

16. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-11-2002 at 02:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #14
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

>I appreciate your thoughts on this
>matter too - but this
>one is too much to
>attempt to explain away casually.
>If we throw away the concept
>of divine inspiration

Please akhi, I hope you realize I would not casually dismiss divine inspiration. I am politely offering a simple explanation of how we 'heathen' view the 'translation'. As you know I beleive it is a translation. I have told you before. I just see it as a tranlation of spoken and source text to written. Since Luqa was not there it is a source text in my mind. This is only to say how Zorbanians abroad would simply say 'LUKE DID NOT SET THE RULES HE ONLY FOLLOWED THE RULE OF 72'.


and allow
>Luke himself to make these
>types of errors


It would be a monumental error for these 72 to NOT know what they're trying to translate.

- sure,
>we could say that Luke
>misquoted and mistranslated the words
>of Peter here in this
>verse.
>
That may not the case. Perhaps Luke hit the nail on the head as far as the rule of 72 goes

>Occam's Razor tells us that the
>simplest explanation is best.
>Luke wrote Acts in Aramaic
>- and the Greek translator(s)
>made the same mistake even
>the 72

Of course I repectfully differ


and Lamsa made.

Yes he blew it

>
>Zorba read "KhBLA" and thought "Pain"
>- when it is Pain-fully
> obvious that the correct
>translation has to be "Cord"
>- just like the Psalms
>that Peter was quoting say
>in the original Hebrew.

Perhaps. Or maybe 'Zorba' thought LXX.

>
>The fact is that all English
>versions of the NT read
>"pain" in Acts 2:24 -
>and they're all wrong.
>They're wrong because they rely
>on Greek manuscripts

Exactly as they translate 'odin'-which is rooted in 'birth pain'. But even, as you pointed out, Dr. Lamsa translated from PNT to Eng. 'pain'. Only he did it wihtout influence of LXX. The GNT did not.

that cannot
>be attributed to Luke -
>Luke would have known the
>correct meaning of what Peter
>was saying.

As he would know LXX


>
>Only the Peshitta has the correct
>reading. And the mistake
>could only have been made
>by going from Aramaic to
>Greek.

Agreed. If it is a 'mistake'. The question is why did the 72 chose 'odin'-'labour pain' over the Gr. 'scoinia'-'ropes'. Two divergent words.
>
>I don't believe Luke made that
>mistake. I believe those
>who translated his work later
>made that mistake.

One final thought. GNT uses a very broad metaphoric word for 'losing' in Acts - 'luso'. This means 'to loose','to free', 'to destroy','to break', 'to undo','to unbind', etc. This verb should have SCREAMED 'ropes' to the 'translator'. That is if the 72 did not speak louder.

Again just some thoughts. Iron sharpens iron,
for what its worth. I don't want to distract you any more.

bwq9y 0ml4

Print Top
Biga
 
Send email to BigaSend private message to BigaView profile of BigaAdd Biga to your contact list
 
Member:
Posts: 193
Member Feedback

20. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-11-2002 at 05:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Hi Akhay!

A few interesting translations:

Pesitto, James Murdock:
24 But God hath resuscitated him, and hath loosed the cords of the grave; because it could not be, that he should be held in the grave.

my hungarian new chatolic translation - translation on square :

Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the bonds of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Akhi Iakov!

If I understand you correctly you suggest Luke prefer using LXX more than the hebrew or aramaic manuscripts. Well, until that the we don't know who was really Luke, we can not state incontestable facts. But, what is your opinion, if Luke was a native from Antiokhia who CAN speak greek as SECOND language, why did he prefer LXX texts? If I had aramaic as mother language I, and I could choose between greek and aramaic, I choose the second one. Or you think, Luke was greek?

cheers,
Gabor


Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

36. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-15-2002 at 08:11 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #20
 
Shlama Gabor,

>Akhi Iakov!
>
>If I understand you correctly you
>suggest Luke prefer using LXX
>more than the hebrew or
>aramaic manuscripts.

This is an interesting point. My view is not fully developed as I am still researching the various OTs, used by different God-fearers and proselytes in Roman Colonies and in various parts of the former Greek empire. It is my opinion that because of Luqa's Pauline ties and the identity of Theophilus that Luqa preferred using LXX as I believe he and Theophilus were more familiar with the translation.

It is my opinion that Luqa translated source texts and conversations as the translator of Luke-Acts uses a high degree of medical terms in their respective nuances.

Someone had mentioned the vagueness of the Gr text. However when one does a thorough study of Greek we find it is not vague but highly precise and technical. Our understanding may be vague as can be any language without a proper understanding. Even Paul's tranlsation does not agree with Dr Lamsa's.
Paul's is more accurate but then the Eng-GNT transl. today is more accurate also.

I have learned a great deal from Paul, Andrew and others on the forum. However I am very critical before I change my mind. Sometimes this is bad but many times I'm glad I did not adopt the initial thesis. Please be patient with me as Paul and Andrew have and I will also do my best to listen.

Shlama,
Yaqub

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

39. Why I am glad Iacov is here

Feb-16-2002 at 04:38 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #36
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov

Once again you show why I am happy for your return. The apostle Paul taught us all to test EVERYTHING, and this is what you do so well. Your honest inquiries bring out the best in Akhi Paul and myself.

I know it sometimes seems like 10 against 1, but I also know you are aware that outside of this tiny forum, Paul and I are outnumbered on this idea 2 billion to 2. I know for a fact that I would not have put as much Greek in my book as I did were it not for your debating me and for me having to search out a response to the best of my limited abilities.

And, unlike some others over the past 2 years I could mention, there has never been any doubts as to your sincere methods and serious scholarship on this. If you eventually see things our way, it will indeed be very sweet, but if not, I am grateful for your presence. Yes I am passionate too--and downright fiery under certain circumstances--but I have gained a lot from you too. If half of my arguments pass your muster and you say "Hmmm that's interesting, but it's not quite as great because..." then I know I will have a fighting chance against others out there.

Also, I don't mind getting a little stronger on my Greek either--even if I have a "Big Bad Wolf" mentality sometimes of, "the better to eat them with."

Keep pushing for the truth Iakov, and I know you and us will continue to be imporived simply by virtue of the journey.

Ken?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

40. Glad to be Here!

Feb-16-2002 at 04:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #39
 
Shlama Akhi Andrew,



>If half of my arguments
>pass your muster and you
>say "Hmmm that's interesting, but
>it's not quite as great
>because..." then I know I
>will have a fighting chance
>against others out there.

My former Heb prof @ ORU was G'veret Mullican. Her father was the late Dr. Robert Lindsey. He was a Baptist Missionary in Jerusalem to the Israelis. When there was no satisfactory translation into Modern Hebrew he took it to task.

Dr. Lindsey translated the GNT into Heb. and discovered it made good sense. He developed the theory that not only was the NT orignially written in Heb but that was the tongue spoken in 1st century Israel. G'veret Mullican introduced the thesis to her students very subtley.

To this day I have GREAT respect for G'veret Mullican however I could not make a sound decision without studying Aramaic.

The Jerusalem School was founded on the theory that Heb was the 1st century Israel language. To my knowledge the proponents had not made a careful study of Aramaic before this theory was formed. The school subsequently studied Aramaic only after the thesis had been established. They enjoy tramendous support from Hebrew University Prof Dr David Flusser.

It is a good idea to do as Luqa and carefully investigate everything. It's a good idea but I don't ALWAYS do it.

Yes GNT was somewhat 'cemented' in me but after studying Hebrew, (and other semitic languages} along with Gr. a guy starts to notice what Dr Lindsey noticed; a semitic text. It just makes sense to study the language of Eshoo before declaring Heb as the language of 1st century Jews.

So you see why I may be skeptical?

I have tamendous respect for the late Dr. Lindsy although I don't hold to his Hebrew theory as Paul's explanation of 'Hebrew Dialect' is better.(See Below if interested}


>Keep pushing for the truth Iakov,
>and I know you and
>us will continue to be
>imporived simply by virtue of
>the journey.
>
>Ken?

Ken, although sometimes I have enough trouble obeying and following what I know and understand in English.
Thanks for your encouragement.

Todah w'Shlama,
Yaqub


Greek support for 'Hebrew Dialect'
Paul Younan's explanation is apealing in light of Papias as '(Ebraios dialektos' -base form is "Hebrew Dialect" whereas (Ebraia glossa would be "Hebrew tongue". One would think that the Church father would use 'glossa'-'tongue' if he meant 'language' as in Acts 2. In Acts 2 the word 'dialektos' is used in reference to a region's own dialect whereas 'glossa' refers to the language or tongue.

Compare:
Acts 2:6 '(oti hkouon (eis ekastos th idia dialektw lalountwn autwn'

'...for we hear them speaking, each one of us, in our very own dialect'.

Acts 2:11'akouomen lalountwn tais (hmeterais glwssais ta megaleia tou theou'

'...we hear them speaking our language declaring God's great deeds'.
I am interested to see Paul's translation.


Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

41. RE: Glad to be Here!

Feb-16-2002 at 05:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #40
 
VERY INTERESTING Akhi!

Actually that is a terrific distinction in the Greek to say DIALEKTOS as opposed to GLOSSA. This is where Greek excels by having so many words that reflect the fine shades of a subject type.

I understand your skepticism though, However, what I have said is that Hebrew was the LITURGICAL TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE of first century Jews in Israel. This is very well established in the examples I recently gave such as the reference of the first and last books in the Hebrew canon ("from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah") and ("Torah, Prophets and Psalms") both of which are referenced in Luke.

Some have gone so far as to declare Hebrew at this time in history as a "dead language" in Israel although I will not go to that extreme either. It is clear however why targums were so popular though because they reflected an easier way for the public at large to understand the Torah. We see this aspect very clearly in many examples, such as when DAVAR is dialectically shifted to MEMRA, not just in the Psalms, but in about 50 places where the interpretors wished to avoid the direct anthropomorphising of the Deity.

In any case, I believe the evidence shows that Hebrew was used in the synagogue for worship (Luke 4:14-30), and that the Jerusalem area Jews spoke a dialect of Aramaic that closely resembled the Hebrew there, whereas Meshikha spoke a northern dialect of Aramaic more closely related to Samaritan Hebrew, which is why Nicodemus did not quite understand the phrase "born again" in Yochanan 3! Nicky instead did what anyone would do in his place when faced with an odd idiom of a related dialect--he interpreted it LITERALLY and needed some 17 lines of info from Meshikha to get it right. Other famous examples are Peter's speech giving him away and Jews from Jerusalem misunderstanding Meshikha's cry from the cross, although in that case it is also likely pain and trauma could have excacerbated the dialectical differences also.

Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Middle East in the first century, and the language of the common man throughout Israel. It is why also--very clearly-- that the rabbis in Jerusalem accused Meshikha of having not studied, because he did not--or chose not--to speak the way they preferred to hear. To the Perushim, the Aramaic of Meshikha could have very well sounded gutteral or even like slang. How would they have felt, for example, when a nice Jewish boy named "Eliezar" was resurrected and referred to instead by dropping the "A" as "LAZAR". It's kind of like saying "ain't" to the Queen of England.

In the end Akhi it does not matter to me whether it is ultimately proven that either Hebrew or Aramaic is the original NT langugage over one another. The two are so close in terms of morphology and syntax, and the Tenakh even uses Aramaic words in Esther and Daniel with Hebrew letters--as to make such a distinction rather small to me. I would much rather look to a common "semitic framework" as the original revelatory vessel of BOTH TESTAMENTS.

So let us keep studying together and we will sort it all out, I promise you.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

42. RE: Glad to be Here!

Feb-16-2002 at 07:56 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #41
 
Akhi Andrew,

>Some have gone so far as
>to declare Hebrew at this
>time in history as a
>"dead language" in Israel although
>I will not go to
>that extreme either.

Thst is a good point as the language still prevails today in the Baiyt K'neset among all the nations , Ken?

However, as you may know, the Jerusalem School says it was the lingua franca of Israel.

In any event you and Paul have shown there is too much Aramaic in NT to adopt the school's view.
Even carrying such weight as Dr. D Flusser.

The ego eimi in Yokhanan saupports Aramaic over Heb.

It
>In any case, I believe the
>evidence shows that Hebrew was
>used in the synagogue for
>worship (Luke 4:14-30), and that
>the Jerusalem area Jews spoke
>a dialect of Aramaic that
>closely resembled the Hebrew there,

I could see that. Much like Texas where English speakers may mix in some Spanish? Or perhaps as a English Speaking Mexican would form synatx much like Spanish?

>whereas Meshikha spoke a northern
>dialect of Aramaic more closely
>related to Samaritan Hebrew, which
>is why Nicodemus did not
>quite understand the phrase "born
>again" in Yochanan 3!

Explain?
That wasn't in the book?

I would much
>rather look to a common
>"semitic framework" as the original
>revelatory vessel of BOTH TESTAMENTS.

Either way they're both semitic documents in the end.


Shlama
Yaqub

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

43. RE: Glad to be Here!

Feb-16-2002 at 09:32 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #42
 
Shlama Akhi Yaqub!

Actually you will find the quote about Nicodemus and Meshikha's dialectic differences on page 214 on the paperback edition of my book. There is a two page variance however between that and the hardcover (560 pages p vs. 562 h), so keep that in mind when searching.

As for the rest, you clearly understood my intent.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

21. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-11-2002 at 05:15 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Shlama Akhi Yaqub,

You're never a distraction brother. I highly value your input always.

Look - you couldn't have asked for better proof of the Aramaic primacy of Acts than this one.

Nobody reasonably thinks that the 72 who translated the Tanakh into Greek were perfect. Nobody reasonably thinks that translations are divinely protected and better than the originals (except for the KJV-only crowd.)

You're looking at the first time in 2000 years that these words of Peter are understood in their proper context. Peter, during his entire speech - quoted from the Psalms and mentioned King David by name.

You and the 30 or 40 others who have read this post are the only ones in the world who realize this and what Peter really said. Imagine the implications of that statement.

Nobody - not the NIV committee, not the RSV, NKJV, NWT, and all other letter combinations - nobody knows this!

We should be grateful for the insight the Aramaic has provided which has totally taken an obscure passage and made a Messianic prophecy in the Psalms clear!

Like I said, though - there's an added bonus here - it's clear that Zorba must have mistranslated this word from an Aramaic original. And the queen of versions has the correct reading.

Are you willing to attribute this error to Luke himself to save the G.N.T. ?

Forget about what the Septuagint says - Luke is writing about what PETER said! And it couldn't be more obvious which shade of KHBLA Peter meant!

Without the Peshitta - this 2,000 year old error would still be with us.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

26. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-11-2002 at 04:59 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #21
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

>
>You're looking at the first time
>in 2000 years that these
>words of Peter are understood
>in their proper context.


Please checkout the NIDNT. Can I scan it and e mail to you? The commentator, R.K. Harrison OT professor, cites the phrase in Acts 2 calling it a parallel to Psalm 18 quoting the RSV 'chords of Sheol, fetters of death'. This is from my recollection. I don't have in front of me now.

>Nobody - not the NIV committee,
>not the RSV, NKJV, NWT,
>and all other letter combinations
>- nobody knows this!
>
>We should be grateful for the
>insight the Aramaic has provided
>which has totally taken an
>obscure passage and made a
>Messianic prophecy in the Psalms
>clear!

I am sorry if it sounded as though the insght was unappreciated. Let me say it this way. Yes the true meaning you discovered is crucial to understanding the text. However , to me, that is not proof of PNT primacy as Ps 18 was regarded as the text elluded to anyway even in GNT.
This is what I mean about appreciating the full flavor of God's truth


>Like I said, though - there's
>an added bonus here -
>it's clear that Zorba must
>have mistranslated this word from
>an Aramaic original.

Perhaps. Perhaps Not.

And
>the queen of versions has
>the correct reading.

Yes as it agrees with Ps 18

>Are you willing to attribute this
>error to Luke himself to
>save the G.N.T. ?

I guess I cannot explain it clearly enough that this is not an error to me. It is the Gr. expression in the OT and the NT. I apologize that I cannot express clearly the issue. Let me try this RSV translates Ps 18 as cords. These English speaking westerners have figured out the meaning of 'khbl'. If these anglo-saxon dingbats (no offense to my Scottish/American Indian self) can properly translate from Heb to Eng. Then to me it is reasonable that the native Hebrew speakers can translate their own tongue into a tongue which is much like Eng today with relative ease.


>Forget about what the Septuagint says
>- Luke is writing about
>what PETER said! And
>it couldn't be more obvious
>which shade of KHBLA Peter
>meant!

See. That is exactly my point. It could not be more obvious that Peter meant cords. I think you are correct about Peter's sermon. I can forget easily about the LXX as I read MT and MT translations but what of Luqa's audience?

Anyway nuff said. I better let you get to translating please. You have some catching up to do. Yes?

bwq9y 0ml4

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

29. RE: Thoughts from a Zorbanian Primacist

Feb-12-2002 at 10:00 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #26
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

I'll get back to translating - but I did want to mention one thing about your statement below:

>If these anglo-saxon dingbats
>(no offense to my Scottish/American
>Indian self)

I feel this is very unfair for you to bring this up as you know it is not at all how I feel about this issue.

You should know that I did what I did because of a very special circumstance in which someone was trying to portray himself as something he is not.

I don't hold to the view you stated above. I don't think that people who are of non-Semitic extraction can't understand these things. In many cases they understand them better then Semites.

What I had taken issue with is someone calling themself a Semite (erroneously and deceptively) to attempt to gain some sort of credibility and to give himself an aura of authority which is not there. NOT that it would have mattered, anyway.

This has nothing to do with you or anyone else.

Please know that, everyone.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

23. The LXX IN ISRAEL

Feb-11-2002 at 05:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Last edited by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Feb-11-2002 at 05:41 PM (CT)

Hi Akhi Iakov:

It's great to have you back! )

I have only a few little things to add about this topic before moving on. The main issue is not that jewish scholars translated the LXX but how that version was regarded in Israel. Before getting into that aspect however, a word on the nature of its creation is in order.

As you know, Josephus tells us that the Jews came to Alexandria to produce a volume of the Scriptures FOR THE KING'S LIBRARY. This was not originally intended as a LITURGICAL-GREEK CHUMASH type of gig. They translated the Torah to obey the wishes of a king who resided over a city with almost 1,000,000 of their brethren. This was a matter of ethnic prestige, and a potential bulwark against ancient pogroms, that a Greek guy like Ptolemy Philadelphus could easily understand Torah. One look at the events of about a century later in 1 and 2 Maccabees shows what these same rulers were capable of.

So, for those reasons, the rabbis would later comment that it was okay to make THE ATTEMPT because Scripture said that the tents of Japheth (Greeks) could dwell with the tents of Shem (Jews) was an allegory to say that Shem's letters (Hebrew) could be put into Japheth's (Greek).

So those are the CIRCUMSTANCES, now what is the RESULT? The result is that while Hellenistic Jews gradually adopted the text, PALESTINIAN JEWS HATED IT and considered the day of the LXX's creation as just slightly less worse than Tisha B'Av-the days when the Temples were destroyed. They put on sackcloth and ashes to commemorate the LXX and went wailing in the streets.

Now consider this. For 200 years, the LXX had a chance to circulate into Israel and what is its influence? Well, in addition to rabbinical condemnation, the fact is that throughout the Second Temple period the Hebrew liturgical tradition was followed. In two cites in Luke, Y'shua affirms this. The reference "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" only makes sense in a canon that has Genesis as the first book and 2 Chronicles as the last one. Zechariah is the last murder victim in Tenakh. And then of course we have the fulfilment of "Torah, Prophets and Psalms" or Law, Prophets and Writings, which the Psalms is considered a part of.

This pattern extends out the Epistle of James, which I write about extensively in my book. The gist of it being that James quotes in that liturgical order. Since James is dead in the year 62, we can safely say this was the case right up until the time Titus destroyed Jerusalem 8 years later.

So, we have to look at how the disciples who were PALESTINIAN JEWS would have regarded the LXX. Put simply, the would not have touched it without wanting to take a shower. Jerome tells us though that when the Greek versions went out that OF COURSE, they would switch the OT quotes...because for both Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles, that version would have been the most familar. However, from my resaearch, even here LXX usage is doubtful. In some cases it sounds similar, but there are always differences, and these I document extensively in my book as well.

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

24. RE: The LXX IN ISRAEL

Feb-11-2002 at 07:16 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #23
 
Akhi Andrew,

>Hi Akhi Iakov:
>
>It's great to have you back!
> )

Todah
>
>I have only a few little
>things to add about this
>topic before moving on.
>The main issue is not
>that jewish scholars translated the
>LXX but how that version
>was regarded in Israel.

I respectfully disagree. I think how it was received in Rome, Corinth, Macedonia, Alexandria, etc.

>Now consider this. For 200
>years, the LXX had a
>chance to circulate into Israel
>and what is its influence?

LXX was not translated for Israel as you noted. Do the recipients dictate the tongue as much as the writer?


>So, we have to look at
>how the disciples who were
>PALESTINIAN JEWS would have regarded
>the LXX.

Why? In all the Roman Colonies visited by Paul is it unreasonable to consider the chief language was Gr? That he communicated to the God-fearers and Yvanits in such language seems to be obvious.



>there are always differences, and
>these I document extensively in
>my book as well.

Yes I read the book remember. However I admit the LXX is not always exact. Never-the-less I have stated from the outset LXX is the closest EXTANT text to many OT quotes in NT.
As I said before this is to let everyone here know how easily the 'proof' is dismissed. It is fun to see the panoramic view and take it all in.
I have nothing more to say on the matter.


Shalom,
Yaqub

Print Top
jdrywood
 
Send email to jdrywoodSend private message to jdrywoodAdd jdrywood to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

44. RE: The LXX IN ISRAEL

Feb-17-2002 at 02:02 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #24
 

Ahki Kulam,
I dont want to appear pretentious or having the last say in such a long post as this but I could not help noticing ahki Pauls remark earlier that sheol was always translated death or grave in the LXX. Since this concept of death in a grave pit escapes notice of many Christians who still believe in a literal Hell I would like to add my 2 cents. The Hebrew Sheol has been translated in the LXX citing their first occurrences by Hades at Deu 32:22 and by mneemion = tomb or sepulchre at Genesis 35:20 (NT Acts 13:29). Thus we have four LXX words to describe the place of Sheol not to mention Tartarus. In the NT the reformers invariably used Hell in many places except one occurrence at 1 Cor 15:55 where Hades was translated grave. Where Hades is first applied to sheol in LXX Deu 32:22 the context describes hell below not beneath and everything consumed by fire is said to be upon the earth. Thus total annihilation or expulsion is indicated. A question arises for Iakov: is there any place in GNT where sheol has been transliterated sheol. And for ahki Paul: is sheol always used for grave pit in PNT.
Shlama, jdyrwood

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

45. RE: The LXX IN ISRAEL

Feb-17-2002 at 08:39 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #44
 
Akhi JDrywood

>The Hebrew Sheol has been
>translated in the LXX citing
>their first occurrences by Hades
>at Deu 32:22 and by
>mneemion = tomb or sepulchre
>at Genesis 35:20 (NT Acts
>13:29).

Unless there is a variant in the MT text that I do not show in Stuttgartensia 'Sheol' doesn't appear in the Genesis passage.

Thus we have four
>LXX words to describe the
>place of Sheol not to
>mention Tartarus.

According to Hatch & Redpath Conc to LXX only Thanatos and Hades translate Sheol and Hades is by far the more common.


A question arises
>for Iakov: is there any
>place in GNT where sheol
>has been transliterated sheol.

According to Moulton & Geden Conc. to the GNT
there is no transliteration of Sheol in GNT.
One would not think so as Sheol is not transliterated in LXX and Hades parallels nicely.

Shlama,
Yaqub


Print Top
jdrywood
 
Send email to jdrywoodSend private message to jdrywoodAdd jdrywood to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

46. RE: The LXX IN ISRAEL

Feb-18-2002 at 07:10 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #45
 

Toda Yagub,
Again your talents are tested and proven correct. My leningrad MT also reads as yours: kevathah (grave site). And thanks for your response to sheol in GNT where Hades seems more equivalent to Hellenistic teaching affecting Alexandria prior CE. Now you say that 'Tartarus' is derived from hebrew 'Gai-henna'. Is this valley near Jerusalem the same as that found in Psalms 84:6 called 'Bacca' because running across a Targum it reads 'Gehenna' here so marked in my bible. jdrywood
Shlama

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service