Stephen_Silver
   Member: Member Feedback |
Nov-01-2001 at 10:00 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Sh'lama Akhi Paul: I have been spending the last few weeks studying, and meditating upon the profound use of Fyrw0 AURITA, vis-a-vis 0swmn NAMUSA, in the Peshitta. By listing all of the uses of 0swmn NAMUSA, chronologically as they appear in the Peshitta, it becomes apparent that, 1)Not all books of the Peshitta, contain the word 0swmn NAMUSA. The Book of Ephesians uses the word once, and that is in Ephesians 2:15, where 0swmn in context can only mean, TRADITION, as defined by (2-c), below. 2)It would appear, from normal, contextual use, that 0swmn has three "phases" of meaning. a)TORAH (Instruction/Truth/Light), as an equivalent expression of AURITA, as in Matthew 5:17, 18. b)TORAH-TRADITION, or the normative practices of "halakhah", "the WAY to walk", "to observe to do TORAH", that are birthed, from a genuine effort to walk in the Spirit of TORAH, as Yahshua has taught, much like the branches of a vine, in a garden, that grows and flourishes, when it is regularly pruned and weeded,(Yukhanan 15:1-10). c)TRADITION, which may be defined as "commandments of men", which may be an attempt at "extending the use" of a "Written TORAH commandment", but lack the "Spirit of TORAH". Instead of "setting free", they "lead to bondage", unjust practices, and are burdensome, when applied in certain cases, such as is mentioned in Ephesians 2:15, and elaborated upon, by Yahshua, in Matthew Chapter 23. Akhi Paul, it's my sincere desire to understand not only the "practical use" of 0swmn , but also "how and why" Fyrw0 AURITA, is uniquely used, only by Yahshua, and only in Matthew 11:13, 12:5, and 22:40. Yahshua is the Master of 0hl0d Yhwlm "the ORACLES of ELOHIM",(Romans 3:2). Fkrwbw 0ml4 Stephen Silver
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Nov-02-2001 at 12:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Shlama Akhi Stephen, Simply put, the reason why only Matthew records the usage of Fyrw0 is because Matthew is the only one who wrote in the 'Hebrew Dialect' of Aramaic (Judean Aramaic.) It's a 'unique' feature of the Aramaic of Matthew. There are other differences between Matthew and the rest of the NT books. Fyrw0 is closely related etimylogically to the Hebrew hrwt, both of which are probably drawn from the same primitive Semitic root. 0swmn is used by all the other authors of the NT because that's the term for 'law' more prevalent in all the other dialects of Aramaic, especially Galilean and the various Mesopotamian/Syrian dialects. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Stephen_Silver
   Member: Member Feedback |
Nov-02-2001 at 05:54 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Sh'lama Akhi Paul: Stephen Silver wrote: Interesting! OK, that makes sense, that Matthew was "written in the Hebrew Dialect". Now, why is AURITA, only mentioned three times, while NAMUSA is mentioned 6 times? >Shlama Akhi Stephen, > >Simply put, the reason why only >Matthew records the usage of >Fyrw0 is >because Matthew is the only >one who wrote in the >'Hebrew Dialect' of Aramaic (Judean >Aramaic.) It's a 'unique' >feature of the Aramaic of >Matthew. There are other >differences between Matthew and the >rest of the NT books. Stephen Silver wrote: I'm primarily interested in the "differences" that are specifically related to AURITA/NAMUSA. I'm trying to nail this thing down, Akhi Paul. Yukhanan Chapter 1, speaks a lot about LIGHT, and I'm convinced that this is related to the prime ROOT of AURITA, though AURITA is not mentioned, except in Matthew. > Paul Younan: >Fyrw0 is closely >related etimylogically to the Hebrew >hrwt, both >of which are probably drawn >from the same primitive Semitic >root. Stephen Silver wrote: The Hebrew ROOT of TORAH is "yarah", to point, shoot like an arrow, to pour(water), however, there is also a "hidden ROOT", and it is AUR, LIGHT, if one isolates the "Vav and Resh". Paul Younan wrote: >0swmn is >used by all the other >authors of the NT because >that's the term for 'law' >more prevalent in all the >other dialects of Aramaic, especially >Galilean and the various Mesopotamian/Syrian >dialects. Stephen Silver wrote: The Aramaic word NAMUSA is from an "obscure ROOT", and is used by Greeks as well. I am not disputing the fact that NAMUSA means "law". It does, as you have pointed out, but TORAH does not mean LAW, in it's PRIME use. I Timothy 3:16, defines TORAH as "instruction in righteousness", and "breath of ELOHIM". These two characteristics refer to the spiritual nature of TORAH. AURITA refers to the source, which is LIGHT, and the "laws of the universe/olam", are a manifestation of LIGHT, and point to LIGHT as the source. So, Akhi Paul, NAMUSA is a very general term, and leads to "ambiguity". It is this ambiguity that has been the primary cause of the rift between Jews and non-Jews. Just look at the way Ephesians 2:15 has been used to "polarize" between Jewish and non-Jewish believers. My wife has a Spanish version that translates this word as JEWISH LAW. Now is that JEWISH LAW as in TRADITION (tradition being defined as "commandments of men), or JEWISH LAW, as in TORAH of Moses, which is not the same thing at all. Yahshua taught TORAH, for Yahshua is the manifestation of grace and truth, that is inherent in TORAH. This can be shown directly from WRITTEN TORAH,(Deuteronomy 18:15-18). NAMUSA in Ephesians 2:15, as you are well aware, and have shown in a series of previous posts, means "law", and is used in the phrase, "law of precepts", not TORAH. So, it's my hope to come to a clear definition of the use of NAMUSA in it's relation to AURITA. By throwing "light" on this unique topic, I hope we can come to a good delineation as to the use of "law", "tradition", TORAH-TRADITION, and "pagan-Tradition", which are all pointed at, by the use of the word NAMUSA. Sh'lama w'Burkate, Stephen Silver. >Fk^rwbw 0ml4 > > Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Nov-02-2001 at 06:26 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Shlama Akhi Stephen, Interesting! OK, that makes sense, that Matthew was "written in the Hebrew Dialect". Now, why is AURITA, only mentioned three times, while NAMUSA is mentioned 6 times? Matthew uses both. Mshikha may have as well, especially when preaching to different areas or to people of different dialects. I find myself doing that often, since within my extended family there are half a dozen modern dialects spoken - with two or three different words for 'window.' Matthew may have preserved thos nuances while the others recorded the sayings in the Galilean-only speech. I'm primarily interested in the "differences" that are specifically related to AURITA/NAMUSA. I'm trying to nail this thing down, Akhi Paul. Yukhanan Chapter 1, speaks a lot about LIGHT, and I'm convinced that this is related to the prime ROOT of AURITA, though AURITA is not mentioned, except in Matthew. The primary difference is that while Namoosa is a general term, Aurita is more specific and speaks only of "Torah." I like where you are going with Yukhanan 1....  The Hebrew ROOT of TORAH is "yarah", to point, shoot like an arrow, to pour(water), however, there is also a "hidden ROOT", and it is AUR, LIGHT, if one isolates the "Vav and Resh". I thought you were going there - how's about an article for Beth-Gaza? You're treading new ground here and I can help, but will have to do some research here too. I don't have it handy - does Payne-Smith's dictionary list "light" as the root of Aurita as well ? The Aramaic word NAMUSA is from an "obscure ROOT", and is used by Greeks as well. I am not disputing the fact that NAMUSA means "law". It does, as you have pointed out, but TORAH does not mean LAW, in it's PRIME use. I Timothy 3:16, defines TORAH as "instruction in righteousness", and "breath of ELOHIM". These two characteristics refer to the spiritual nature of TORAH. AURITA refers to the source, which is LIGHT, and the "laws of the universe/olam", are a manifestation of LIGHT, and point to LIGHT as the source. So, Akhi Paul, NAMUSA is a very general term, and leads to "ambiguity". I agree with you Akhi, I just wish I had a handy explanation - or that the two words were not so inter-twined. The fact of the matter is that these two terms can be used interchangeably, although "Aw-ray-ta" can only mean 'Torah' whereas Namoosa can mean 'Torah' as well as a whole bunch of other things. This will be a tough area of research primarily because of the tendency of Namoosa to (annoyingly) overlap in meaning with "Aw-ray-ta." I, on my end, will attempt to ask some elders in the Church and community and also look up some 'patristic' authors to see what they have to say on the topic. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Stephen_Silver
   Member: Member Feedback |
Nov-03-2001 at 10:42 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Sh'lama Akhi Paul: Paul Younan wrote: "I thought you were going there - how's about an article for Beth-Gaza? You're treading new ground here and I can help, but will have to do some research here too." Stephen Silver wrote: Yes, that's a good idea, Akhi Paul. Let's do an article together. Send me an E-Mail and we'll set it up. Paul Younan wrote: "I don't have it handy - does Payne-Smith's dictionary list "light" as the root of Aurita as well ?" Stephen Silver wrote: No, it doesn't mention "light". It says: --quote--(from the same Hebrew root as that from which "the Torah=the Law, is derived) the law, the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch according to the Septuagint version; often used inclusively of the whole of the Old Testament.--end quote-- That's all she wrote!!  Fkrwbw 0ml4 Stephen Silver
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|