In reply to message #
 

In reply to message #0
 
Dear Akhi Paul:
I looked up the verse my self and it reads as follows: Umithyaav wa d'nimle kharsei min parthuthei d'naflin min pathurei d'hu athiraw. Elaw awf khalvei awthein waw m'lakhakhin shukh-nawvhi. In the Hebrew tongue I have: Umitaveh haya l'malei et bitno min hapeirurim hanoflim mishulkhano shel heasher,elaw she'af hakhlawvim haiu bawim umlaqqim et avabu-otaiv. Is this correct. I finnally received the Hebraic font with nikudot text of the Peshitta in Aramaic and Hebrew. The word play is present only in Aramaic I think. Shalma Rabba Berkhate, Shmuel the New Covenant is Kyawmaw Khadtha Kthaw dadyawtheikei Hadatha.The peshitta is called : Ashshakhtha Peshitta. The city of Orhai is modern Urfa in Turkey today.It once had a very large jewish Aramaya speaking population who wrote the Peshitta Tenakh added later the Deutercannonical writings of the Septuagiant and the Kyawmaw Khadtha if I am correct.How is my Aramya transliteration doing?

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi Shmuel,

Yes, you are correct. The wordplay exists only in the Aramaic.

The book is excellent, is it not? I like it very much myself, and have learned a lot of Hebrew from comparing it to the Aramaic verses.

Yes, the cities of Urhai (Edessa) and Seluecia-Ctestiphon (Babylon) were heavily populated by Jews and Assyrians (both Aramaic-speaking). These were the birthplaces of the Church of the East.

Your Aramaic transliteration is perfect. In my dialect of Aramaic, we pronounce the "Payin" letter as only 'P' and not 'F', although there are some tribes who pronounce it sometimes as 'F'. So, either way is fine (depending on dialect.)

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>Dear Akhi Paul:
>I looked up the verse my
>self and it reads as
>follows: Umithyaav wa d'nimle kharsei
>min parthuthei d'naflin min pathurei
>d'hu athiraw. Elaw awf khalvei
>awthein waw m'lakhakhin shukh-nawvhi. In
>the Hebrew tongue I have:
>Umitaveh haya l'malei et bitno
>min hapeirurim hanoflim mishulkhano shel
>heasher,elaw she'af hakhlawvim haiu bawim
>umlaqqim et avabu-otaiv. Is this
>correct. I finnally received the
>Hebraic font with nikudot text
>of the Peshitta in Aramaic
>and Hebrew. The word play
>is present only in Aramaic
>I think. Shalma Rabba Berkhate,
>Shmuel the New Covenant is
>Kyawmaw Khadtha Kthaw dadyawtheikei Hadatha.The
>peshitta is called : Ashshakhtha
>Peshitta. The city of Orhai
>is modern Urfa in Turkey
>today.It once had a very
>large jewish Aramaya speaking population
>who wrote the Peshitta Tenakh
>added later the Deutercannonical writings
>of the Septuagiant and the
>Kyawmaw Khadtha if I am
>correct.How is my Aramya transliteration
>doing?

In reply to message #0
 
Akhi Paul:
By the way Acts 20:28 reads: Izddaru hakheil bnafshkhon wavkhulaw maritha hai ddaqimkhon baw rukha d'qudshaw apisqofei ddthiron leiddthei ddamshiakha hai ddaqnaw badmei. The phrase leiddthei ddamshiakha is the Church of Messiah not the false reading of the on line version the Church of God. Shmuel

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhi Shmuel,

Absolutely. I would have not recommended it had it been based on the later corrupt revisions in the Byzantine empire. The text is based strictly on the Eastern (Persian) manuscripts.

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>Akhi Paul:
>By the way Acts 20:28 reads:
>Izddaru hakheil bnafshkhon wavkhulaw maritha
>hai ddaqimkhon baw rukha d'qudshaw
>apisqofei ddthiron leiddthei ddamshiakha hai
>ddaqnaw badmei. The phrase leiddthei
>ddamshiakha is the Church of
>Messiah not the false reading
>of the on line version
>the Church of God. Shmuel
>

In reply to message #4
 
Shlama Akhi Paul:
Taybutha amkhon washlama min Alaha avun umi Maran Eishu M-shikha. Thank you for your comments. The version is excellent. It does containthe Deutercanonical Books of Keipa Shlikha Bet,Yokhannan Bet, Yokhannan Gimel,Ehuda Shlikha,Gilyana D'yonkhannan Shlikha. If these are not Siprei Qadisha is there any proof in their Aramaic texts that the vocabalary or grammar differ from the Kadmaytha of these Iggartha(s)? What does the word Sevartha mean when refering to the Gospels? What are the Bagad Kepat letters? My book says they are the soft letters. What is mevattlana mean pertaing to the Aramaic letters? How many Turkish and arabic words are fouuuund in Modern Aramaya of today and how does that differ from Peshitta or Biblical Aramaya, known as Lishona Aramaya Qadisha. Shmuel

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Akhi Shmuel,

">Shlama Akhi Paul:
>Taybutha amkhon washlama min Alaha avun
>umi Maran Eishu M-shikha. Thank
>you for your comments. The
>version is excellent. It does
>containthe Deutercanonical Books of Keipa
>Shlikha Bet,Yokhannan Bet, Yokhannan Gimel,Ehuda
>Shlikha,Gilyana D'yonkhannan Shlikha."

Yes, they are included. From the introduction section of the book, the editors say that they included these books from a critical edition that was printed by our brethren in the Chaldean Catholic Church in Mosul in 1890.

">If these
>are not Siprei Qadisha is
>there any proof in their
>Aramaic texts that the vocabalary
>or grammar differ from the
>Kadmaytha of these Iggartha(s)?"

Yes, there is proof within the texts themselves in that the Aramaic is one of translation rather than of composition.

More importantly, the records exist of when they were translated (5th & 6th Centuries AD) from Greek and by whom (Thomas of Harkel and Philoxenus of Mabbug).

These made it into the Western Canon of the Peshitta, but never into the Eastern Canon.

Obviously, the people who made that Hebrew version (which is excellent), hold to a 27-book canon, and so (as they claimed) they inserted these into the Hebrew version....while using the Eastern text for the standard 22 books.

">What
>does the word Sevartha mean
>when refering to the Gospels? "

Sevartha literally means "Hope", and it has been used by people to refer to the Gospels.

">What are the Bagad Kepat
>letters? My book says they
>are the soft letters."

Those letters can sometimes change to a "softer" sound, depending on the specific oral tradition.

They are:

Beth - normal sound "B", soft sound "W"
Gamal - normal sound "G", soft sound "J"
Dalath - normal sound "D", soft sound "Th"
Kaph - normal sound "K", soft sound "Kh"
Payin - normal sound "P", soft sound "F"
Taw - normal sound "T", soft sound "Th"

">What
>is mevattlana mean pertaing to
>the Aramaic letters?"

Those are silent letters. They may have been pronounced in ancient times, but in modern reading we do not pronounce them.

A common example is the word "ANT" (You) is pronounced "AT" (You) - where the "N" is silent.

One example of this in English is "Thorough", where the "G" is not pronounced.

">How many
>Turkish and arabic words are
>fouuuund in Modern Aramaya of
>today and how does that
>differ from Peshitta or Biblical
>Aramaya, known as Lishona Aramaya
>Qadisha. Shmuel "

Well, modern Aramaic (neo-Aramaic) has 16 dialects. Some of them are closer to the literary standard of the Peshitta, others are further from the literary standard.

Many dialects also have Turkish or Kurdish or Arabic or Persian words adopted into that dialect, depending on the location of that particular community.

We in the West, for instance, have adopted even English words because of the lack of an equivalent in Aramaic. (think "Television", "Telephone", "Computer", etc.)

Unfortunately, because of the persecution of the native Christians in the Islamic realms, our language cannot be taught publicly, and has therefore suffered for many centuries an onslaught of foriegn words.

This happened in various degrees throughout many regions. Some tribes were more isolated, while other tribes lived among Arabs and Turks and Kurds and Persians......these dialects began to inherit some featur

In reply to message #6
 
Dear Akhi Paul:
Taibutha washlama nisgge l-khon b-shuw-dawaw d-Alaha wad'maran Eishu M-shiakha.
thank you for the information it will be helpful in reading of the Peshitta I'm sure. In Sevartha Qaddishtha Karozutha D'Yokhannan Keipalon Alep 1-6 reads: Berashith oythavhi wa miltha. W'hu miltha oythavhi wa l'wath Alaha. WAlaha oythavhi wa hu miltha. Hanaw oythavhi wa berashith wa Alaha. Kol bidei wa. Uviladavhi apla hadaw hawa middem d'dahawa. Beikhayyae hawa. W'khayyae oythahon nuharaw. Dav-nainasaw. dUhu nuharaw b-kheshokhaw manhar. W-kheshokhaw law adr-khei. Hawa barnasaw. Dishtaddar min Alaha. Sh-mei Okhanan. In Hebrew it reads:
Berashit haya hadavar,v-hu hadavar haya eitzzel Ha Elohim, V-Elohim haya hu hadavar. Halah hayah berashit eitzel ha-Elohim. Hakol al-Yado nihyah,ubiladaiv af lo ekhud nihyah asher nihyah. Bo hai-u ha-Khaiyim ,v-ha-Khaiyim heim or bnei Ha-Adam. V-hu ha-or ba-khoshekh mei-eer,V-khoshekh lo hissigu. Hayah ish sheggishlakh mei-eit ha-Elohim, Yokhanan sh-mo. It seems the word Miltha in Aramaic is translated as Davar,whereas in the Targum it is rendered as Merma or Miltha more literally. This agrees with the Greek tranlation of the text only it varies a little being translated from the Peshitta not the Greek text. Todah Rabbah, Slhlama Berkhate shmuel-Elizer Bar Yaqob Khoheina Mei Kohelath Isroeil.

In reply to message #7
 
>Dear Akhi Paul:
>.
>It >seems the word Miltha in >Aramaic is translated as Davar,whereas >in the Targum it is
>rendered as Merma or Miltha >more literally. This agrees with >the Greek tranlation of the
>text only it varies a >little being translated from the >Peshitta not the Greek text. >Todah Rabbah, Slhlama Berkhate shmuel-Elizer >Bar Yaqob Khoheina Mei Kohelath >Isroeil.

Dear Akhi Shmuel--

Awesome transliterations in both Hebrew and Aramaic of Yukhanan! I think it is very helpful to many here to see these side by side.

If I may, I noticed you talked of "merma" and can only assume you meant MEMRA. You are right of course however that the targums consistently use MEMRA whereas as Tenakh uses DABAR. I go over some of the reasons for this in my book and wanted to share this with you and others:

The First Two Mystical Titles of the Messiah:
Adam Kadmon and Memra

With this very brief tour of the mystical tradition and its origins accomplished, let us now look at the first mystical title: Adam Kadmon:

...the form (image) of G-d in which He created man is actually G-d's blueprint form for man. This "form" or "blueprint" consisted of G-d's first thought in creation, and hence the highest level of creation. This is referred to as �Adam Kadmon� (Primeval Man).

The Bahir; Kaplan edition p. 95

At that time, again according to the Zohar, the Universe and everything in it only existed in the mind of God. However, once the seifirot appear, they link up and form the image of a man. Then, as Gershom Scholem puts it in two key passages:

�In His active manifestations, the Godhead appears as the dynamic unity of the Sefiroth, portrayed as the "tree of the Sefiroth," or the mystical human form ('Adam Kadmon), who is none other than the concealed shape of Godhead itself�However, the Sefiroth do not appear only in the shape of the tree. They also appear in the form of Primal Man, ('Adam Kadmon), which corresponds to that of earthly man.�

On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead; Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah; p 39, 43

And:
�God entered into the form of the Adam Kadmon...�

Kabbalah by Gershom Scholem p. 116

So now we see a prototype of the idea of God entering into human form, much the same way Isaiah 9:5-6 calls a certain child �Mighty God, Everlasting Father�.

The next step is to see that there were always two forms of the same One God. One is the Spirit (Ruach) or Divine Will, and when God decides to do something, He then speaks the Creative Word, memra . This MEMRA is the second mystical title, and the reason for such a tradition is simple, and has a sound Scriptural source:

�By the Word of YHWH were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the Spirit of His mouth.�

Psalm 33:6

This verse, of course, parallels the account in Genesis 1:3, where God pronounced light into existence also with a word.

However, one of the barriers to understanding this concept in the Hebrew Bible has been the consistent �cover up� of the divine name YHWH, which occurs more than six thousand times. Any Jew can easily pronounce these letters properly, but a tradition over the last two millennia has forced most of them to obscure the pronunciation into a less sacred word, �Adonai�. If, however, the non-Hebrew reader wants to get some sense of the extent of this substitution, look in any prominent English translation (KJV, NIV, etc), and count the times the word LORD appears in all capital letters. Each one of those LORDs is YHWH in Hebrew!

Therefore, when we restore the divine na

In reply to message #8
 
Dear Akhi Andrew:
Be cautious when quoting from the Zohar as it is a false writing of Neo-Platonic Gnosticsm writen bythe Rabbais. It has some truth and is interesting but it has a lot of mythology and herasy as well, as does the rest of Qaballah. As far as the Peshitta in John 1:1 it says Miltha not Memra. The Targums do say Memra as well as Miltha. Your point is very well taken. I do not believe in mystical traditions at all only the Word of God the Seprei Qashita of the Tenakh and Kayama Khadatha. I read the traditons both Jewish and Christian but take them with a grain of salt as the expression goes. They are to be judged by the Miltha Qadishta alone. Shmuel Shlama Rabba wa Berkhate.

In reply to message #9
 
Dear Akhi Shmuel:

We are actually in agreement here. I think you know that I only venerate Tenakh and B'rit Chadassah as God breathed...and in particular the ACOE Peshitta NT colection in the original Aramaic.

My intention in quoting the Zohar and related writings was simply to show that our Messiah permeates every major facet of Jewish thought...even folklore. Talmud is not Scripture either, but it also lends huge support to our positions when it is understood in the wider context of Jewish thought, and that is what I was trying to show.

Additionally, the same could also be said of the targumim that you started with. They are not the Scripture themselves either, but provide vital insight in understanding HOW THEY UNDERSTOOD SCRIPTURE. When we see then how every major artery of Jewish discourse, both official and unofficial, pointed to the glorious advent of Maran Eshoo Meshikha, we can then well understand his comment to Nicodemus in proper context:

"ARE YOU A TEACHER IN ISRAEL AND YET DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS?"

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth