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

John 16:8, 13

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #819
Help Print Share
Keith
 
Send email to KeithSend private message to KeithAdd Keith to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

John 16:8, 13

Jan-21-2002 at 07:05 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

Hello Akha

Is Akha the plural of "brother"? We finished with the Book of John in Trimm's HRV last night.

This chapter (16) kind of intrigued me. Is it true that the Holy Spirit is thought of in the feminine in Aramaic? Obviously God the Father, and indeed the entire preincarnate Trinity, would have to have female as well as male attributes. Especially since Moses said that God said in Genesis 1:26 to "let us make man in our image" AND (in 1:27)"male and female created he them". Therefore females are also made in God's image and not just males. Thus, God's image must include female attributes.

Now, if in Aramaic when describing the Holy Spirit a feminine pronoun ("she") should be used why does the Peshitta use a masculine pronoun in John 16:8, 13-14? See Trimm's footnote here.

In Christ's Love,
Keith

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic
Larry19
 
Send email to Larry19Send private message to Larry19Add Larry19 to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

1. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-21-2002 at 02:22 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
>Hello Akha
>
>Is Akha the plural of "brother"?
Akha is singular. Just add 'y' and you'll have it.
Akhay='brothers' or 'brethren'

> We finished with the
>Book of John in Trimm's
>HRV last night.
>
>This chapter (16) kind of intrigued
>me. Is it true
>that the Holy Spirit is
>thought of in the feminine
>in Aramaic? Obviously God
>the Father, and indeed the
>entire preincarnate Trinity, would have
>to have female as well
>as male attributes.
Akhay Andrew and Paul could do much better than myself here, but I'd like to leave you with some very interesting thoughts just the same. Near the end of 1 Cor. ch. 1 (verse 26??) we have the expression "... Christ, the wisdom of God.." or "Christ has been made unto us wisdom."
I may be thinking of two different verses here.
At any rate, the point I'm trying to make is that Proverbs is absolutely loaded with the pronoun 'she' in reference to wisdom. 'She' hath builded her pillars, called unto the simple ones in the streets, etc., etc. So "Christ has been made unto us wisdom (a 'she')!!
I've also heard that Father, Son and Holy Spirit have been identified with Wisdom (Personified), Knowledge (Personified) and Understanding (Personified) but, alas and alack, I've forgotten the teaching and its source. Just thought I'd throw that one in there to 'keep the fire burnin'!

Especially
>since Moses said that God
>said in Genesis 1:26 to
>"let us make man in
>our image" AND (in 1:27)"male
>and female created he them".
>Therefore females are also made
>in God's image and not
>just males. Thus, God's
>image must include female attributes.
>
>
>Now, if in Aramaic when describing
>the Holy Spirit a feminine
>pronoun ("she") should be used
>why does the Peshitta use
>a masculine pronoun in John
>16:8, 13-14? See Trimm's
>footnote here.
>
>In Christ's Love,
>Keith


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

5. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-22-2002 at 03:26 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi Lawrence,

That's a wonderful observation - like Hebrew, the Aramaic word for wisdom Fmkx, is Feminine.

'Course, my wife always knew that anyway.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

6. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-22-2002 at 04:29 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 

As the Middle Pillar of the Godhead the Son of Yah is the harmonization of the Father and the Ruach. Prov. 8 is about the Ruach HaKodesh. The Messiah is the combination of the Ruach and the Father. Thus the Messiah is the Wisdom just as he is also called "Everlasting Father" in Is. 9:6-7 because he is the Father in combination with the Ruach.

Trimm

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

7. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-22-2002 at 08:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 

For confirmation of this compare Is. 11:1f with Proverbs 8. Notice the parallel language. The Spirit that rested upon Messiah was the Wisdom of Prov. 8

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

2. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-22-2002 at 11:24 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi Keith,

Yes, it's absolutely true that in both Hebrew and Aramaic the word 'spirit' is, in general, a Feminine word.

However, the hypothesis alluded to in the HRV footnote is totally wrong - and probably stems from the fact that non-speakers of Aramaic came up with this argument (I've heard of this before the HRV.) I don't say that to insult or downplay Dr. Trimm's work - it's just that in order to properly understand the complex grammar and usage of Aramaic - it's a big plus if one has spoken it during one's lifetime. It's not an easy language to master from books alone.

Chapter 16, Verse 8 - a masculine pronoun ('haw', wh), among several other masculine suffixes later in the speech, is used precisely because the word 0=lqrp (#17268) is Masculine. So the only valid grammatical usage here for pronouns would be Masculine. Christ spoke perfect Aramaic - and I would not expect that His grammar would be off here.

Chapter 16, Verse 13 - this is perfect Aramaic grammar here, as well. While 0xwr is indeed Feminine, the word 0rr4 (Truth) is Masculine. In Aramaic, this would force the speaker to switch to Masculine pronouns and possessive suffixes, because the modifier (for lack of a better term) 0rr4d (of Truth) has now switched the context of the thought to a Masculine context.

While the raw word for 'spirit', 0xwr , is Feminine - that does not always mean that the word is treated as such. It's just not that simple, especially in cases like verse 13 where a modifier ('of Truth') is used.

'Rukha' is Feminine - however, 'Rukha d'Shrara' is linguistically Masculine. The Peshitta has 100% perfect grammar here - while the 'Old Syriac' does not and shows itself to be the work of an amateur scribe.

Finally, I'd like to say that you can see this basic grammatical concept in action for yourself, Akhi, by comparing John 1:1 in Dr. Kiraz's work that aligns the various Aramaic/Syriac versions. In particular, notice that Flm ('Word') is Feminine in Aramaic, too. But how is it, then, that a Masculine wh is used by the 'Old Syriac' as well as the Peshitta ???

You see, it's just not as simple as saying the word is Feminine so therefore all pronouns and suffixes should be Feminine. It's not that simple.

If you would be so kind to scan it in (John 1:1) - I could demonstrate it for everyone here. Then, finally, this misguided argument of Feminine/Masculine pronouns for the Holy Spirit can be put to rest.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

3. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-22-2002 at 12:04 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
One problem that presents itself in translating the New Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic into English
Is that of the gender of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). English is very different from Hebrew and Aramaic. To begin with English has three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter (i.e. he, she and it). Hebrew and Aramaic have no neuter gender. In Hebrew and Aramaic everything is either a he or a she and nothing is an it. Also gender plays a much more important role in Hebrew and in Aramaic than in English. In English gender is usually only an issue when dealing with pronouns. But in Hebrew and in Aramaic nouns and verbs are also masculine or feminine. And while there are no true adjectives in Hebrew (nouns are used as adjectives), noun modifiers must agree in gender with the noun. Now the Hebrew word RUACH (Aramaic RUCHA) is grammatically feminine as is the phrase Ruach HaKodesh. This is matched by the role of the Ruach HaKodesh as comforter (Jn. 14-16) and the identification of the comforter with YHWH acting as a mother (Is. 66:13).

Now in English the Ruach is often referred to as he or it as also in the Greek New Testament. However this seems very odd indeed to the Semitic mind.

Now it is very clear that the gender of the RUACH has been revised in many passages of the Aramaic to agree with the Hellenistic concept of the Holy Spirit as being either a he or an it. Thus the pronouns
used for the Ruach HaKodesh in Jn. 14-16 in the Peshitta are all masculine. However the hand of revision is very clear. For example while both the Peshitta and Old Syriac have he in Jn. 16:8 the Old Syriac has she just a few verses further down in 16:13 while the Peshitta has he.

Moreover there are many passages in which the Peshitta itself pairs the Ruach HaKodesh with feminine verbs and/or feminine modifiers: Mk. 1:10; Jn. 1:32, 33; 6:63; 7:39; Acts 8:29, 39; 16:17; Rom. 8:9, 10, 11, 16, 26a, 26b, 1Cor. 3:16; 1Tim. 4:1; 1Pt. 1:11; 4:14 and 1Jn. 5:6. In fact the Peshitta Aramaic of Rom. 8:16 opens with:


0dhsm 0xwr yhw

And she the Ruach gives testimony.

While it is clear that the Ruach HaKodesh has no literal gender, it is also clear that the Ruach HaKodesh is grammatically and figuratively a she.

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

4. Dr. Trimm.....

Jan-22-2002 at 12:17 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-22-2002 at 01:30 PM (CT)

Shlama,

The comments you have made, frankly, are erroneous and are mistakes that only a non-speaker would make. You really should not be telling people who speak Aramaic everyday how their language is spoken. I can tell very easily that you don't understand Aramaic at all, so please don't pretend to be a scholar with me. Furthermore it's very insulting to have someone who's not even a Semite, not to mention who has never spoken the Aramaic (or, Hebrew) language a day in his life, to come and tell me in a condescending post on my forum how to speak my own language - the language of my parents and grandparents. You should be asking questions and learning - not pretending to be teaching and translating from a language you have absolutely no proficiency in or knowledge of.

First of all, the following verses you have given only support my explanation:

Mk. 1:10; Jn. 1:32, 33; 6:63; 7:39; Acts 8:29; Rom. 8:9, 10, 11, 16, 26a, 26b, 1Tim. 4:1; and 1Jn. 5:6

In those verses, 0xwr is present alone (no modifiers.) IN THAT CASE, THEN, IT IS LINGUISTICALLY PROPER TO GIVE IT FEMALE ATTRIBUTES.

That's not the case with John 16:13. Rukha d'Qudsha and Rukha d'Shrara are both Masculine because "Qudsha" and "Shrara" are both Masculine Modifiers. That's Aramaic 101 - any native speaker will tell you that.

Acts 8:39, 16:17, 1Cor 3:16, Keepa 1:11 and 4:14 are exceptions because they speak of the "spirit of" somebody, like "Rukha d'Alaha." It is also grammatically proper in that case to use Feminine grammar.

But, again - when modifiers like 'Qudsha' and 'Shrara' are used, which are Masculine adjectives or modifiers - it's not proper grammar to use feminine attributes. Period. Aramaic 101.

Frankly - this theory of yours is crap - and no native speaker needs a native Scottsman (not a Semite) who is a convert to Judaism and has never spoken the Aramaic language a day in his life to teach them their own language. You should really check your (supposed) PhD at the door - I didn't (supposedly) study this language in school.

Finally, the only version, as you so eloquently stated, where 'the hand of revision is very clear' is the HRV - and not the Peshitta - which is precisely the reason why the Church of the East has never authorized any translation of the original Aramaic New Testament.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

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

8. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-22-2002 at 09:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Hello James,

Your unfounded claim regarding "the hand of revision" is nothing more than the biblical author(s) use of correct Aramaic grammar.
Its pretty simple .... when "Rukha" appears without modifiers its grammatical code is "feminine" (this is the case with every example you mentioned in your previous post Mk1:10 - 1Jn 5:10)

Now when "rukha" appears alongside an adjective such as "holy", the entire phrase (i.e. "rukha dqudsha") takes on the masculine code that qudsha contains thereby rendering it masculine.

Now when "rukha" appears alongside a feminine adjective then sure it takes on the feminine coding that the feminine modifier contains.

Thats not revision , nor is it a case of hellenization. ITS NOTHING MORE THAN CORRECT ARAMAIC GRAMMAR.

When one finds the gender incorrectly applied such as in the various cases found in the so-called Old Syriac (but never found in the Peshitta itself), its nothing more than sloppy grammar being employed by an inadequate scribe.

Its clear that YOU either do not know enough Aramaic grammar or YOUR bias and/or agenda is forcing you to misrepresent grammatical fact.

Which is it, I'm curious?

BTW Rukha dqudsha is grammatically NOT a she.

Dean Dana

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

9. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-22-2002 at 10:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #8
 

OK now if we take that theory and follow it through. It seems that you are saying that the scribe of the Old Syriac altered the perfectly good grammar of the Peshitta from "he" to "she" for what reason?

I can see the revision from "she" to "he" as helenization, but not the other way around.

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

10. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 00:23 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
There doesnt need to be a conspiracy theory present to explain how someone could make a mistake.

Its very possible that the Old Syriac scribe simply had difficulty identifying the gender of the modifiers in question.

As you know, gender identification in Aramaic is more difficult than in Hebrew. Thats why a native knowledge is essential!

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

11. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 00:23 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
For Chrissakes, James - Yukhanan 16:13 is dialogue straight from the Messiah's lips - is you sayin He ain't got no proper grammar sense to Hisself at all ?

Who among those multitudes would follow such a Messiah who couldn't even speak properly ? Would you ?

Are we to trust the Peshitta - which has Him speaking Aramaic eloquently, or the OS which has Him speaking what might as well be Swahili ?

C'MON!

The OS didn't collect dust at a Greek monastery for 1400 years for no reason at all. And the middle-eastern churches that have venerated the Peshitta for the last 2000 years are not rushing out to replace it with copies of these 'Old Syriac' gospels.

Maybe they know something - and aren't just being stubborn 'darkies' ?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

12. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 08:53 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #11
 

You are correct about 16:8 which explains why the OS has "he" there.

However in 16:13 the phrase "Spirit of Truth" is in the construct state withe the primary, governing noun being Rukha (spirit) which is feminine. So here the OS is correct to have "she".

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

13. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 09:07 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #12
 
By the same reasoning, then, we should expect the OS to have feminine pronominal enclitics and independent pronouns in John 1:1 with reference to the primary noun - Flm (Miltha, 'Word') - which just happens to be feminine ?

Or no ?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

14. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 09:56 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #13
 

In Jn. 1:1 the "Word" is the Messiah Yeshua (Jn. 1:14). and this is why the WOrd is masculine.

However in the Nazarene Jewish tradition the Ruach HaKodesh is figuratively feminine as an allegorical "Mother" oposite to the allegorical "Father" in the Godhead.

Trimm

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

15. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 09:59 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #14
 
Ohhh - I see. So the grammatical lesson you gave me about my own language, which verbatim was:

"However in 16:13 the phrase "Spirit of Truth" is in the construct state withe the primary, governing noun being Rukha (spirit) which is feminine. So here the OS is correct to have "she".

....doesn't apply here?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

16. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 11:01 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #15
 

Yes like in Mt. 16:18:

...You (masc.) are Kefa
and upon this (fem.) KEFA I will build my assembly...

When KEFA is an appellation for Shim'on it is traeted as masculine, because Shim'on is masculine.

BUT

When in the same verse the word KEFA appears as a wordplay but NOT as an appellation for Shim'on, it is traeted as feminine (because KEFA is naturally feminine).

In the same way MILTA is naturally feminine but in Jn. 1:1-14 is used as an appellation for Yeshua and so it is treated as masculine.

Trimm

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

17. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 11:08 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Right - so, again, your Aramaic grammatical lesson for me:

"However in 16:13 the phrase "Spirit of Truth" is in the construct state withe the primary, governing noun being Rukha (spirit) which is feminine. So here the OS is correct to have "she".

....Is garbage, right?

If one is not limited by the gender of a word (as John 1:1 and Matthew 16:18 demonstrate), then your lesson is garbage and was just made up?

There is, in fact, no such grammatical rule in Aramaic as the one you made up above - is there Dr.?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

18. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 11:37 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #17
 

The "rule" I stated is the basic rule. The exception we have discussed has to do with feminine nouns used as appellations for masculine beings. However I fail to see how that affects the overall rule here. In Jn. 16:13 the primary noun is RUKHA. SH'RARA "truth" is just a modifier. RUKHA D'SH'RARA is NOT used as a appellation for a masculine being so RUKHA should be treated as feminine as the OS has it.

>Right - so, again, your Aramaic
>grammatical lesson for me:
>
>"However in 16:13 the phrase "Spirit
>of Truth" is in the
>construct state withe the primary,
>governing noun being Rukha (spirit)
>which is feminine. So here
>the OS is correct to
>have "she".

>
>....Is garbage, right?
>
>If one is not limited by
>the gender of a word
>(as John 1:1 and Matthew
>16:18 demonstrate), then your lesson
>is garbage and was just
>made up?
>
>There is, in fact, no such
>grammatical rule in Aramaic as
>the one you made up
>above - is there Dr.?
>
>
>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

19. RE: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 11:47 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #18
 
The "rule" I stated is the
basic rule. The exception
we have discussed has to
do with feminine nouns used
as appellations for masculine beings.

There is no such thing as a "basic" grammatical rule. A "rule" is a "rule" without any exception - otherwise it is stated plainly upfront that the convention is "unpredictable" or "irregular."

"However I fail to
see how that affects the
overall rule here. In
Jn. 16:13 the primary noun
is RUKHA. SH'RARA "truth"
is just a modifier. "

RIGHT - and I can point to you thousands upon thousands of examples in Aramaic literature, both religious and secular, where modifiers affect the gender state of Nouns.

RUKHA D'SH'RARA is NOT used
as a appellation for a
masculine being so RUKHA should
be treated as feminine as
the OS has it.

James, Shra'ra is a Masculine modifier and therefore the term 'Rukha d'Shra'ra' is Masculine.
Rukha d'Qudsha is Masculine, since Qudsha is a Masculine modifier. Rukha d'Khekmatha is Feminine, since Khekmatha (Wisdom) is Feminine.

See the pattern?

The Gender state of Nouns in Aramaic can be changed by adjective modifiers.

The Peshitta (and therefore, Mshikha) has perfect grammar in Yukhanan 16:13 - whereas the 'Old Syriac' does not.

I can't state it any clearer - so please go ask other Aramaic speakers for verification.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

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: John 16:8, 13

Jan-23-2002 at 09:35 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #19
 
Hey, brethen, peace

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