The Peshitta

[Lightenup]

Mike,
YHWH is also the expression used for God.

[mikeboll64]

No Kathi,

YHWH is the actual NAME of God – not an “expression” used of God.

[Lightenup]

This is from the guy that is writing the interlinear that you have referred to:

Quote

Mar = Lord and Yah = the Name of God. “Mar-Yah”. It's a title in Aramaic used exclusively for YHWH.

and:

Quote

Mar-Yah contains an abbreviated form of the NAME of YHWH, as found in the Psalms. It's a title, again. It's not meant to replace the personal Name of YHWH.

From here 10 posts down: http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1652&hilit=MarYah&start=15

[mikeboll64]

You mean where he says this:

The Holy Name of God is YHWH in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, English and Swahili. There is only one Name of God, and the language is Hebrew. There is no other name in any other language. Only titles. Maryah is a title, not a name. It's not meant to replace the personal Name of YHWH.

Or where he says this:

No, God is not known as Lord Yeshua. Not in the New Testament nor in the Old Testament.

I did see the part you talked about, which makes me wonder why he didn't translate his version as “Lord YHWH” when the Aramaic said “marya”.

[mikeboll64]

Kathi,

This post is from the same forum (third post from the end on page 3):

I just have a question concerning the term “maryah” (especially the capitolization of the “Y”) and it's usage for YHWH being the same as when used for YAHUshuah.

I looked through every lexicon and concordance to find where this “maryah” fit in and never found it…

The only term in Aramaic I found used for YHWH was “marya”, the same is used for YAHushuah and the same word is also used for Thomas in one instance…

Interesting, huh?  It seems this guy has been looking where I've been looking.  I don't find any Aramaic “Mar Yah” either………. only “marya” which is the emphatic of “lord”.

Even MORE interesting that this guy claims that “marya” is also used of Thomas in one instance.  I'd like to check that out – if I could only figure out how.  Perhaps this is the same as the generally accepted (but untrue) “adonay” claim?

At any rate, I read the whole three pages, and with the exception of Younan's comment about God never being called “Yeshua Messiah”, it seems many of the posts are from people who believe Jesus is God Almighty – just like you do.  I suspect that this belief is where “Mar Yah” comes in.  I don't think that it is a real Aramaic word, but more a matter of certain Aramaic Primacy Trinitarians playing around with the word “marya”, trying their best to FORCE it into being “Mar Yah” – so they can claim that Jesus is called “Yah”.  

[Lightenup]

Mike,
I am not responding to your post at this time but I will. I want to suggest that you look at the peshitta.org forum, type in the word “proven” in the search box and scroll down to get to a comment that says “Re: The Messiah IS YHWH —> Proven” then go to that thread and read through it from the beginning. There are a bunch of people like ourselves but some like Paul Younan and Andrew Roth know a great deal about this Aramaic Peshitta.

http://www.peshitta.org

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 20 2012,17:03)

You mean where he says this: The Holy Name of God is YHWH in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, English and Swahili. There is only one Name of God, and the language is Hebrew. There is no other name in any other language. Only titles. Maryah is a title, not a name. It's not meant to replace the personal Name of YHWH. Or where he says this: No, God is not known as Lord Yeshua. Not in the New Testament nor in the Old Testament. I did see the part you talked about, which makes me wonder why he didn't translate his version as “Lord YHWH” when the Aramaic said “marya”.

Mike,
I read a reponse of his that said that the committee that is doing the interlinear wanted to keep it in plain English and that is why it is not “Lord YHWH.” He is not making a restored name version like the one on Bible.cc.

I have personally asked for some clarification regarding MarYah and your lexicon/dictionary question. He directed me to this info:

http://www.scribd.com/doc….eshittO

Quote

Mar Ephraem (4th century) instead of defining MarYah, said it's an acronym which stands for: Meem: Marutha (“Adonship”)Resh: Rabbutha (“Mightyness/Grandeur, Splendour, Splendor, Greatness”)Yodh-Aleph: Ethya (“Self-Existence') The last part is the telling. Here Mar Ephraem tells us plainly that he believed the Yodh-Aleph(which are the only two letters he grouped together in the acronym) stood for “self-existent”which clearly refers to the Divine Name ofYHWHin the Hebrew language. Next to each verse listed, in ( ), denotes exactly which form of MarYahwas found, for atotal of 6 variances of MarYahwithin the Renewed Covenant.The five proclitics prefixes are “de”, “al”, “aw”. Sometimes the proclitics are combined as “de al”. Single proclitics :”de” (of)”al ” (to/unto/towards)”be” (in/by)”aw” (and) Compound proclitics :”de al” (that towards*)(* – “unto” proclitic is related to the verb in the sentence -“towards AdonYHWHyou should prostrate”) MarYahappears 192times in the Eastern PeshittA,and another 23 times within the Western PeshittO wherein a total of 215.In this list the #s in [ ] denote the number of time each form appears throughout the Eastern PeshittA Renewed Covenant, #s in { } denote the extra PeshittO occurrences : [78] MarYah(AdonYHWH){17} [82] “de MarYah” (of AdonYHWH){4} [18] “al MarYah” (to/unto/towards AdonYHWH){1} [11] “be MarYah” (in/by AdonYHWH) [1] “aw MarYah” (and AdonYHWH){1} [2] “de al MarYah” (that towards* AdonYHWH) The following #s in [ ] lists the occurrences of MarYahin each of the PeshittA Books : [20 in MattithYaHu] 1:20 (de MarYah)1:22 (MarYah)1:24 (de MarYah)2:13 (de MarYah) 2:15 (MarYah)2:19 (de MarYah)3:3 (de MarYah)4:7 (al MarYah)4:10 (de al MarYah)5:33 (al MarYah)12:4 (de MarYah)21:9 (de MarYah)21:42 (MarYah)22:37 (al MarYah)22:43 (MarYah)22:44 (MarYah)22:45 (MarYah)23:39 (de MarYah)27:10 (MarYah)28:2 (de MarYah) [10 in Markos] 1:3 (de MarYah)2:26 (de MarYah)5:19 (MarYah)11:9 (de MarYah)12:11 (MarYah)12:29 x 2 (MarYah)12:30 (al MarYah)12:36 (MarYah)13:20 (MarYah) [37 in Loukanus] 1:6 (de MarYah)1:9 (de MarYah)1:11 (de MarYah)1:15 (MarYah)1:16 (MarYah)1:17 (al MarYah)1:25 (MarYah)1:32 (MarYah)1:38 (de MarYah)1:45 (MarYah)1:46 (al MarYah)1:66 (de MarYah)1:68 (MarYah) 1:76 (de MarYah)2:9 (de MarYah)2:11 (MarYah)2:15 (de MarYah)2:22 (MarYah)2:23 x2 (de MarYah)2:24 (de MarYah)2:26 (de MarYah)2:38 (al MarYah)2:39 (de MarYah)3:4 (de MarYah)4:8 (de al MarYah)4:12 (al MarYah)4:18 (de MarYah)4:19 (al MarYah)5:17 (de MarYah)6:4 (de MarYah)10:27 (al MarYah)13:35 (de MarYah)17:29 (MarYah)19:38 (de MarYah)20:37 (MarYah)20:42 (MarYah) [3 inYoKhawnawn]{+1 for the Western PeshittO} 1:23 (de MarYah)8:11 (MarYah){Western PeshittO only}12:13 (de MarYah)12:38 (de MarYah) [46 in The Book of Acts] 1:24 (MarYah)2:20 (de MarYah)2:21 (de MarYah)2:34 (MarYah)2:36 (de MarYah)2:38 (de MarYah)3:19 (de MarYah)3:22 (MarYah)4:24 (MarYah)4:26 (MarYah)4:29 (MarYah) 5:9 (de MarYah)5:14 (be MarYah)5:19 (de MarYah)6:3 (de MarYah)7:30 (de MarYah)7:31 (MarYah)7:33 (MarYah)7:37 (MarYah)7:49 (MarYah)8:26 (de MarYah)8:39 (de MarYah)9:10 (aw MarYah)9:15 (MarYah)9:27 (al MarYah)10:36 (MarYah)11:21 x2 (MarYah& de MarYah) 12:7 (de MarYah)12:11 (de MarYah)12:17 (MarYah)12:23 (de MarYah)13:10 (de MarYah)13:11 (de MarYah)13:12 (de MarYah)13:49 (de MarYah)14:3 (MarYah)14:25 (de MarYah)14:26 (de MarYah)15:17 x2 (MarYah& al MarYah) 16:32 (de MarYah)18:9 (MarYah)18:25 (de MarYah)18:26 (de MarYah)19:10 (de MarYah) [9 in Romans] 9:28 (MarYah)9:29 (MarYah)10:12 (MarYah)10:13 (de MarYah)11:34 (de MarYah)14:9 (MarYah) 14:11 (MarYah)14:14 (be MarYah)15:11 (al MarYah) [21 in 1Corinthians ] 1:31 (be MarYah)2:16 (de MarYah)3:5 (MarYah)3:20 (MarYah)4:4 (MarYah)4:5 (MarYah)4:17 (be MarYah)4:19 (MarYah)7:17 (MarYah)8:6 (MarYah)10:26 (de MarYah)11:27 x2 (de MarYah)11:29 (de MarYah)12:3 (de MarYah)12:5 (MarYah)14:21 (MarYah)15:47 (MarYah)15:58 x2 (be MarYah& de MarYah) 16:10 (de MarYah) [10 in 2Corinthians] 2:12 (be MarYah)3:16 (MarYah)3:17 x2 (de MarYah& MarYah) 3:18 x2 (MarYah& de MarYah) 6:17 (MarYah)6:18 (MarYah)10:17 (be MarYah)10:18 (de MarYah) [4 in Ephesians] 2:21 (be MarYah)4:5 (MarYah)4:17 (be MarYah)5:19 (al MarYah) [2 in Philippians] 2:11 (de MarYah)2:29 (be MarYah) [3 in Colossians] 3:22 (de MarYah)3:24 (al MarYah)4:7 (be MarYah) [1 in 2 nd Thessalonians] 3:3 (MarYah) [2 in 2 nd TimoTheos] 2:19 x2 (de MarYah& MarYah) [11 in Hebrews] 6:3 (MarYah)7:21 (MarYah)8:8 (MarYah)8:9 (MarYah)8:10 (MarYah)8:11 (al MarYah)10:16 (MarYah)10:30 (MarYah)12:5 (de MarYah)12:6 (MarYah)13:5 (MarYah) [9 in Yahakobe] 1:7 (MarYah)3:9 (al MarYah)4:10 (MarYah)4:15 (MarYah)5:4 (de MarYah)5:7 (de MarYah)5:10 (de MarYah)5:11 x2 (MarYah) [4 in 1 st Kepha] 2:3 (MarYah)3:12 x2 (de MarYah)3:15 (al MarYah)(The rest are Western PeshittO only) {6 in 2 nd Kepha} 2:9 (MarYah)2:11 (MarYah)3:8 (al MarYah)3:9 (MarYah) 3:10 (de MarYah)3:15 (de MarYah) {2 in Yehudah} 1:9 (MarYah)1:14 (MarYah) {14 in Hazon} 1:8 (MarYah)4:8 (MarYah)6:10 (MarYah)11:17 (MarYah)14:10 (de MarYah)15:3 (MarYah)15:4 (MarYah)16:7 (MarYah)18:8 (MarYah)19:6 (MarYah)21:22 (MarYah)22:5 (de MarYah)22:6 (aw MarYah)22:20 (MarYah)

This is easier to read on the website that the link takes you to. He told me that the dictionary and lexicon is wrong. These are his words:

“Any dictionary or lexicon listing MRYA as the Emphatic for MRA is incorrect.”

Read this page on a forum about it and especially see the 14th post down:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum….#p17194

[mikeboll64]

Kathi,

That is like me saying, “Instead of trying to define the word 'lord', let me just make an acronym of what it means to me:  

L is for Love
O is for Omnipotent
R is for Reigning over us
D is for Divine”

And then, some years later, some other dude says, The “D” is the telling part, making it clear that Lord Jesus is Divine!

Kathi, if only the “meem” part of the word means “lordship”, then why even have the whole word “mar”? I don't know any Aramaic, but I'm quite confident that their letter “m” did not, in and of itself, mean “lordship”.

Nor did I notice the FIFTH letter “H” in dude's acronym.  How are you going to insist on the “H” to to equate it to “JAH” in the Psalms, but then list an acronym from a dude who made it clear that “H” wasn't even a part of the word?

As for Younan saying those lexicons are “wrong”, didn't that seem rather flippant to you?  He didn't even bother to ask WHICH lexicons, or how many.  (I've listed five now, btw.  Are they all “wrong” because Paul Younan says so?  Were these other Aramaic experts just idiots or something?)

[Lightenup]

Mike,
I suggest that you become a member of the forums at Peshitta.org and send Paul Younan a PM with your questions. He is a native speaker of Aramaic and is a deacon at a church in Chicago that uses the Peshitta. He is also the one who is writing the interlinear that you have looked at. He would be a much better person for you to ask your questions to and he seems very receptive to those interested in this. Otherwise, if I ask your questions to him and then give you the answers, there might be something lost in the translation, and that is what the gist of this thread is about after all…loosing something in the translation or the translation of the translation

http://www.peshitta.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 28 2012,11:27)

loosing something in the translation or the translation of the translation

      Okay, I might do that at some time.  I will probably get kicked off the site within a week for challenging the “expert”.  (I saw how he treated the guy who questioned him in that other thread page we both looked at!   )

Kathi, I think that ANY translation that calls Jesus “YHWH” is flawed.  Jesus has his own name, in fact, MANY of them, and none of those names are “YHWH”.

I believe the Peshitta to be an early TRANSLATION of the Greek texts that were written by the disciples.  And I believe the word “marya” to simply be the emphatic form of the Aramaic word for “lord”.  Therefore, I've concluded that all this “Peshitta Primacy” stuff comes from TRINITARIANS, who are frothing at the mouth about an inaccurate claim that “marya” is really “Mar Yah”, and therefore means that Jesus is God Almighty, because he is called “Yah”. This claim is tickling their itching ears, and therefore drawing much attention.

Nevertheless, I might go talk to Paul some day.  

[Lightenup]

Mike,
This is so important for you to consider because it totally shows the divinity and deity of Christ if it is true and you need to believe what is true otherwise you will be denying a very important truth that may have tremendous consequences to you as you continue in false teaching. So, because of the level of importance, contact Paul and be open minded as if you are sincerely looking for the truth, not in the manner that you already know everything. Don't bring your bias to your discussion, just your honest questions. If you approach it in that manner, you will have a better chance to have a heart to heart discussion with him and have your questions answered. If you are just going to be the antagonist, then he will probably treat you like someone wasting his time. Be respectful…he knows quite a bit about the Aramaic language and can teach you a lot. He is also a computer person like t8 and developed a message board but unlike t8, he is a scholar in the Aramaic language.

Also, I found this page in the peshitta.org site and this is something you should look at…first post on the page:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2173

[mikeboll64]

Kathi,

For me there is but ONE God, the Father Jehovah. That is it. My heavenly Father as appointed His Son and Servant Jesus as Lord of heaven and earth.

It is similar to Pharaoh appointing Joseph over the entire land of Egypt. But just like the second most powerful man in Egypt still had someone over him that he served, the second most powerful being in existence still has someone over him that he serves.

YOU are free to believe in TWO Almighty Gods. I will continue to believe in ONE, because that is what the WHOLE of scripture teaches us – no matter which language it is written in.

peace,
mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Did you not look at that link?

Do you believe in one begotten God, the Son as well as one God, the Father?

[mikeboll64]

Yeah, I read the “poetry” post like you asked.

Kathi, I believe there is but one ALMIGHTY God. That One has a Son named Jesus who is also a mighty one (god). The Son is more mighty than any of the many other mighty ones (gods), but doesn't come close to the ALMIGHTY One who created him as the first of His works.

One is unbegotten, and therefore has existed from eternity. His Son IS begotten, and therefore logically had a beginning, just as many scriptures attest. It's not that hard if you simply consider the words “Father” and “Son”. In all cases of such relationships, the father exists BEFORE the son does.

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Thanks for reading it. What did you think?

So you believe in and serve two mighty theos's then, correct?

[Lightenup]

Mike,

Quote

In all cases of such relationships, the father exists BEFORE the son does.

In all such cases the father also had a beginning and did not exist at one time. Dream on Mike, you can't make an apple to apple analogy. It doesn't hold up, does it.

[Proclaimer]

You are dreaming LU.

A father of a son is the source of the son.
The source obviously is the predecessor.

Jesus is the image of God.
An image is a reflection or in the likeness of the original. To be any kind of image there first needs to be an original. Just like Eve was made in the glory of the man. She did not precede the man and nor was she always with the man at the first moment. She was made for the man.

How could any of this be the other way around, where an image predates or precedes the source. Or how could the Father be of the son. Or how could there be no difference in that both the source and the one from that source are the same date or do not precede each other.

It seems like yourself as is with the Trinitarians, you go to ends of the earth to make a disciple and for what reward. To make someone else believe the same nonsense? What is the attraction with this reward? A soothed ego? Some reward that is. And I don't think you have had even had this very poor form of pleasure either.

Jesus is the first born of many sons.
Just as all the other sons do not exist as long as the the Father, nor does the prototype son.

It amazes me how people get to be influenced by the spirit that denies the truth about Jesus being the son. It seems that people will use any excuse.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 02 2012,03:54)

Whatever happened to the truth.

Good post t8, as usual. I truly wish you had more time available to post on this site.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 31 2012,23:04)

Mike, Thanks for reading it. What did you think?

I think we miss much of the wordplays and poetry of the scriptures by reading them in English.

I'm reading the NETBible right now, complete with every footnote, and they point out all the names and such that make a play on the other words in the verse in Hebrew.  These are things we miss by reading the scriptures in English.

Example:
Knowing from God that people would someday rally around him, his father named him “Alamo”.

I know this is a stupid example, but we in America know all about “REMEMBER THE ALAMO!”, right?  And how that cry gave courage and “purpose” to those fighing in the Mexican/American war.  But to read this in another language, many years from now, the wordplay would be lost on the readers.

Anyway, there is nothing in that post that proves the original was Aramaic.  It was simply a matter of a translator rendering the words in a way that they were poetic in English.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 31 2012,23:04)

So you believe in and serve two mighty theos's then, correct?

I believe in MANY mighty theos's, Kathi.  And I will likely serve MANY mighty theos's as well.  For Jesus will not rule alone, but along with many other powerful, spirit beings such as John and Paul and Peter, etc.  In Biblical terms, they too will be mighty theos's that I serve.

We agree in that we shouldn't try to equate the mighty theos's John, Paul and Peter with THEIR OWN Theos, Jehovah.  But we disagree in that you DO want to do this in the case of Jesus.

Kathi, there is only ONE Most High God.  Jesus is not Him, but His Son.  End of story.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 01 2012,17:00)

Mike, Quote In all cases of such relationships, the father exists BEFORE the son does. In all such cases the father also had a beginning and did not exist at one time. Dream on Mike, you can't make an apple to apple analogy. It doesn't hold up, does it.

Okay. So ONLY in the case of God is there a Father who didn't have a beginning. How does that knowledge alter the fact that ALL sons have beginnings?

[Author]

Posts