An Aramaic Glossary of Common Terms

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Medicine*Woman, Aug 21, 2004.

  1. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,342
    *************
    M*W: I found a glossary of aramaic terms at http://essenes.crosswinds.net/glossaryaramaic.html

    Some of the common terms we use on the Religion Forum are listed below. Remember, these words come from the language Jesus spoke, and it's different from Hebrew and Greek. Why? Paul didn't speak Aramaic, he spoke Greek.

    Abba - Father (Head of a Monastery)
    Alaha - A word meaning God (Compare to the Muslim Allah)
    Alahia - A word meaning Gods
    Alma - Age or eternity
    Amin - Faithful One (A title of God used by the Order of Nazorean Essenes)
    Amta - Maiden
    Ashuat - Seventh day, sabbath
    Asian - Healers, Essenes (Asian = Esian = Essene)
    Ba - (Ab)(The Great Father - Abba)
    Buzrana - Semen, seed
    Da-Dirka - "the way" or "law" (Dharma)
    Diwan - scroll
    Eesho, Oshu, Osu - Yeshua the Nazorean (Jesus)
    Ginat 'dania - Garden of Eden
    Habib - Beloved
    Haluna - vagina
    Hawa - Eve
    Hiwia - Serpent
    Katuliqa - Catholics
    Kawila - Ark
    Mama - mother, mommy
    Mar, Mari, Maria - Lord, My Lord
    Masbuta - Baptism
    Miryal - hypocoristic form of Mariam, Miriam, Maria, Mary (i.e. the Gnostic Title & Essene-Nazorean name of Mary Magdalene)
    Oma, 'ma - Mother
    Pailis - Deceiver, Paul
    Pardasa - Paradise
    Paruta - orgasm
    Pihla - male organ, yearning for union
    Pira - Womb
    Prishuta - discernment
    Qinta - Female singer slaves; second wife of John the Baptist
    Qum - a name given to Nazareth; to stand, rise or be erect
    Ra - Rabai (rabbi; rabboni)
    Rhum - Rome
    Shlama - Peace be with you
    Sin - Moon
    Yahta - abortion , stillborn
    Zatan - Satan

    If Jesus had written anything, it would have been in Aramaic.
     
  2. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,696
    Aramaic is a Semitic language, closely related to Hebrew and Arabic. I don't know anything about the original Aramaic people, if ever there was one (after all, there is no "Swahili people"), but the Aramaic language was the common language of Mesopotamian civilization as it spread throughout the Mideast and sired offspring civilizations in places like Persia. By 500 BCE it was the lingua franca of the entire Middle East. As the nation of Israel lost its political power even the Jews adopted it as their everyday language, reserving Hebrew for the liturgy. That is why Jesus spoke Aramaic.

    Meanwhile, the Greeks had already founded the first Indo-European civilization in Europe starting around 2,000BCE -- their own version of the Mesopotamian -- and began spreading out in all directions. By 500BCE they had absorbed Palestine and other parts of Asia Minor into their empire. Greek never displaced Aramaic as the language of everyday life, but it was the language of the government and scholars. (Similar to the duality of English and French for a couple of centuries after the Norman invasion of Britannia.) Most writing was done in Greek, including the books of the bible that were transcribed during that era.

    So the Jewish people spoke Aramaic at home, prayed in Hebrew, and executed documents in Greek. I'm not sure you're correct that Paul didn't "speak" Aramaic. He almost surely did because most of his friends and family wouldn't have had the education to understood Greek, the language of government and scholarship. However, he was apparently well enough educated to have studied Greek, and as with most educated people of the region and era, it was the language he wrote in.

    As for Jesus, well, Aramaic was not exactly unknown as a written language, and parts of the bible were transcribed in it. It would have made sense for a prophet to write in the language of the people. Most of them couldn't read it, but most of them couldn't read in any language and needed someone to read the stories to them. A village elder reading the stories of Jesus to them in their native language would have been much more powerful than for a scholar to read them in Greek and haltingly translate them into Aramaic.

    (Btw, I realize I'm on the Religion thread here and not on my own turf, but I understand that even within your own community there is considerable controversy over the issue of whether Jesus actually wrote any of his own words. A huge faction of devout Christian, Jewish, and Islamic scholars of the bible believe that none of the New Testament was committed to writing until decades after Jesus's death, and furthermore that it is not blasphemy to say so. I'll stay out of that dispute but you should at least be aware that it's raging.)

    Of course by the dawn of the Christian era the Romans had overrun the Greek empire and Latin was spreading as the language of commerce and government. But it spread very slowly, even more slowly than Greek had. In the regions where the Greek people were still prominent Greek continued to hold sway. Officials who actually came from Rome spoke Latin and official government documents were written in Latin, but most educated people and businessmen were far more likely to be fluent in Greek than in Latin.

    As for Aramaic, it continued to be the spoken language of the region -- for many centuries in fact. Up into the second millennium CE, when the new Arabic version of Mesopotamian civilization with its Islamic faith permeated the Middle East, many people, even Arabs, spoke Aramaic at home. After all, Arabic was the language of Arabia, Mohammed's homeland, and it took quite a while for it to penetrate Iraq, Syria, etc., where other ethnically Arab populations had for centuries spoken Aramaic.

    When the sixth or seventh iteration of Mongol invaders made their periodic foray westward, they picked up the Islamic religion along the way, intermarried with every people they conquered, and by the time they reached Anatolia they had become the Ottomans and their Mongol language had morphed into Turkish. (Earlier Mongols bequeathed Europe with its other non-Indo-European nations and tongues: Finnish and Hungarian.)

    This sudden interruption of the political domination of Arabic-speaking people left millions of subjects still speaking Aramaic. Even written Aramaic enjoyed a renaissance around 500 years ago. It didn't really begin to vanish in earnest until the demise of the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century, leaving the Arabic people and their language once again as the dominant force in the Middle East.

    Still, it has not eradicated all the other languages in the region. The Indo-European people still speak Indo-European languages -- Farsi, Pashto, Tajik, Urdu, etc. -- heavily laced with Arabic borrowings. And the Turkic people of Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and, of course, Turkey itself, still speak languages descended from Mongolian -- heavily laced with Arabic borrowings.

    But Aramaic, once one of the world's most widespread languages, is nearly dead. We can probably thank Mel Gibson's movie for sparking a bit of interest in it so that it may at least live on in academia like Latin.
     
  3. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Really!?

    Is there really anything that says that the Word they used to designate Paul was rooted into the same meaning as the word "pailis" which means 'deceiver'.

    Is "Paul" an Angalization of the original name? P-A-U-L is not the same as P-A-I-L , but the comparason between diverse languages cannot be expected to be significant.

    Do you know how they spelled Paul's name in the Aramaic Scrolls?
     
  4. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,342
    Leo Volont: Really!?

    Is there really anything that says that the Word they used to designate Paul was rooted into the same meaning as the word "pailis" which means 'deceiver'.
    *************
    M*W: The website I cited apparently is not accessible. I printed out this glossary back in 2001.
    *************
    Leo Volont: Is "Paul" an Angalization of the original name? P-A-U-L is not the same as P-A-I-L , but the comparason between diverse languages cannot be expected to be significant.
    *************
    M*W: "Paul" is a Latinization of "Saul." I just learned today when I read the glossary again that "Pailis," the true Latinized name of "Paul," not surprisingly, means "deceiver." I've said from the very beginning of my membership here on sciforums, that Paul was the Antichrist.
    *************
    Leo Volont: Do you know how they spelled Paul's name in the Aramaic Scrolls?
    *************
    M*W: According to the glossary, it was "Paulis," the deceiver who invented Christianity.
     
  5. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Dear Medicine Woman,

    It would be like a used car lot calling itself 'Ripoffs' or 'Lemons'. It might be true, but it is inconceivable that they would use that as their name.

    Paul could not have been the Foundational Apostle to the Catholic Church if his name literally meant to everybody who knew him that he was "The Deceiver".

    If his name meant "The Deceiver" do you not think that it would have become occassion for comment in one of his 14 Letters, or in the Book of the Acts, or in Peter's Letters which comment upon Paul? Paul was busy enough defending himself from various charges. And Peter was driven to defend Paul, since he had sponsored him into the Church. But in all of that, we have no indication that his being called "The Deceiver" was not to be taken literally.
     
  6. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    That is only if those words are translated correctly from ancient aramaic, which I think is a big if. There's a descrepency in that their word for God is quite different than the Aramaic word.
    http://www.learnassyrian.com/aramaic/
     
  7. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,342
    Leo Volont: Dear Medicine Woman,

    It would be like a used car lot calling itself 'Ripoffs' or 'Lemons'. It might be true, but it is inconceivable that they would use that as their name.

    Paul could not have been the Foundational Apostle to the Catholic Church if his name literally meant to everybody who knew him that he was "The Deceiver".

    If his name meant "The Deceiver" do you not think that it would have become occassion for comment in one of his 14 Letters, or in the Book of the Acts, or in Peter's Letters which comment upon Paul? Paul was busy enough defending himself from various charges. And Peter was driven to defend Paul, since he had sponsored him into the Church. But in all of that, we have no indication that his being called "The Deceiver" was not to be taken literally.
    *************
    M*W: I understand your point; however, Paul allegedly changed his own name from Saul (don't know the meaning of that right now), to Paul.

    Secondly, I believe both the OT and NT to be written in code words (or translated in code words). Then, there's also the human error factor attributed to centuries of scribes who had the availability to alter the texts at free will.

    Paul probably did speak Aramaic, but he even admitted that he lied when he felt the need to, stole when he had the urge, and deceived for the his opinion of what was the greater good. It's still curious why Paul called himself "The Deceiver," but he did.

    The Romans spoke Latin, so it was doubtful, at least early on, that they knew the meaning the Aramaic meaning of Paul. It has also been said that Saul Latinized his name to Paul for the purpose of converting the Gentiles (pagans in Rome). After all, Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen. If Paul was aware of the Aramaic definition of the name he chose, it doesn't surprise me. Perhaps in those days it had a different meaning with a more positive connotation. But if it means "deceiver" today, which is what I understand from the glossary, then Paul is known as a deceiver, like I've always said. Paul may have been known to be a good man back in those days (I don't believe that is true), but today he is known as a deceiver. That is the main characteristic of the Antichrist which I believe he was.
     
  8. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,342
    okinrus: That is only if those words are translated correctly from ancient aramaic, which I think is a big if. There's a descrepency in that their word for God is quite different than the Aramaic word.
    http://www.learnassyrian.com/aramaic/
    *************
    M*W: Since I don't speak Aramaic, Hebrew or Arabic, I don't know. Aramaic seems to be a little bit of both even though it is said to be a dialect of Hebrew. Any Aramaic linguistititions out there?
     

  9. OK fair enough, so I checked an aramaic site & got this:
    from:

    http://www.peshitta.org/
    I used the tools to get to the lexicon:

    and got this:


    for Paul

    for deceiver
    for discernment
    M*W: are you up to your old tricks again? you hate Paul so much, so lying about him comes naturally to you. you are a deceiver & have no discernment

    BTW, Aramaic is written & read from right to left, like Hebrew & Arabic
     
  10. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    I'm just glad that there seems to be one other person in the Universe that hates Paul as much as I do. I think he is the Antichrist.

    But I wonder what Medicine Woman's thing is. She doesn't seem to have much more respect for Jesus, supposing that he would be the kind of person who would be out to seduce and rape the girls that would come to Him for spiritual counseling. I think she is convinced that Christ knocked up Mary Magdeline. and I think she once claimed that Jesus hated His Mother. Heck! Maybe Medicine Woman just hates everybody! Granted, I hate most everybody, but I love the Blessed Virgin and Recognize that the Spiritual Christ is the Life In All Things and will Manifest as Judge on the Last Day... and that He doesn't knock up the girls that come to Him seeking Spiritual Comfort and Consolation.
     
  11. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,342
    Leo Volont: I'm just glad that there seems to be one other person in the Universe that hates Paul as much as I do. I think he is the Antichrist.

    But I wonder what Medicine Woman's thing is. She doesn't seem to have much more respect for Jesus, supposing that he would be the kind of person who would be out to seduce and rape the girls that would come to Him for spiritual counseling.
    *************
    M*W: Leo, you are entirely wrong when you say that I don't have respect for Jesus. If I didn't respect Jesus, I wouldn't want to learn everything about him as a historical person. You have to remember, what you read about Jesus in the NT was WRITTEN BY PAUL! It's Paul's perception of Jesus that I reject in the NT. I reject everything written by Paul, because, as you believe, Paul is a LIAR! I want to learn about the real Jesus, the Jesus Paul didn't write about!
    *************
    Leo Volont: I think she is convinced that Christ knocked up Mary Magdeline.
    *************
    M*W: Again, Leo, I have never said anything like this. It is not my research that alludes to Jesus and MM being married and having children, it's the research of biblical scholars. I just happen to believe their research. There's nothing wrong with Jesus being married, and as a Rabbi, he would have HAD TO HAVE been married. That's Jewish Law. There's quite a bit of difference between being legally married with child and knocked-up. Just because you don't believe Jesus was married doesn't mean that he was celibate. There's just too much research that has been done to prove the NT wrong.
    *************
    Leo Volont: and I think she once claimed that Jesus hated His Mother.
    *************
    M*W: I was citing authors of biblical research. I did not make this up on my own, in fact, I still don't understand where the researchers arrived at this conclusion. Don't quote me as having said something if I quote other authors. There's a difference. Just because I may believe something to be logical and believable doesn't mean that I created the thought. I create enough of my own thoughts (yet to be published) that I will take credit for, but don't put the publications of others on my resume.
    *************
    Leo Volont: Heck! Maybe Medicine Woman just hates everybody! Granted, I hate most everybody, but I love the Blessed Virgin and Recognize that the Spiritual Christ is the Life In All Things and will Manifest as Judge on the Last Day... and that He doesn't knock up the girls that come to Him seeking Spiritual Comfort and Consolation.
    *************
    M*W: I am not the kind of person who is filled with hate for other people. That's just not me, but how would you know, since you don't know me? You need to stop listening to your angels who are obviously lying to you. You need help, Leo.
     
  12. I guess you're serious? are you sure, it isn't you that needs the help?
     
  13. Fortuna Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    MW, I do not believe that it is correct to say that "what you read about Jesus WRITTEN BY PAUL". It is true that Paul has more books in the NT than any other single author (last I remember, I believe that 5 books are certainly attributed to Paul, with 2 others in some dispute, pastorals are debatable) but, as I know, one of the issues in the study of the NT is how little Paul tells us about the historical Jesus. Paul focuses more on the Christ, the sacrificial nature of the cruxificion, and such theological issues, and the immediate concerns of his congregations (which looks to be the purpose of [many] of these letters). We get far more information about Jesus himself from the synoptics and John.

    As to Paul being a liar, (while he does admit at times to using guile in his teachings, I assume this is not to what you refer), I think that this would be a hard fact to establish conclusively. While he seems to teach a variation of Christian theology as opposed to that we see or derive from the synoptics and John, I find it difficult to find these as culpable or intentional mistruths on Paul's part. IOW I doubt that he intentionally misconstrued or misrepresented Christian teachings as he knew them. It may be plausible to say that he adapted them for gentile consumption, which perhaps in and of itself changed their meanings to some degree.(which perhaps grew over time).

    On the other issue brought up, I also find MW is at times a bit harsh when posting about the Christian religion. I find this a bit strange to see these anti-religious attittudes from someone with the name "medicine woman" , which is suggestive of American indian cultural and religious beliefs. OTOH I use the name "Fortuna", the Roman goddess of fortune and the hearth, even though I regard her only as a historical curiosity.
     

  14. Try using some english words on the lexicon provided here, & see if there are any similarities with M*W's unknown language:
    http://www.peshitta.org/
     
  15. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,342
    Randolfo: Try using some english words on the lexicon provided here, & see if there are any similarities with M*W's unknown language:
    http://www.peshitta.org/
    *************
    M*W: Randolfo, you found a website, and I found a website. So? What are you saying? That the website I found is in error and the website you found is the gospel truth? Think again, my friend! Aramaic is a dead language. Do yoou think you could post a website that ia better than mine? I don't give a rat's ass what is real and true in Aramaic. Dead! Dead! The only problem here is that Christians believe what was SAID in Aramaic! But, the fact is that, you don't know anything in Aramaic! Jesus spoke Aramaic, but you xians don't even know what he said because what you're reading is in... duh... GREEK!

    Randolfo, you are the number one xian idiot on sciforums. Get a life why don't cha?
     
  16. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    M*W, I orginally pointed my suspicion because I've found entire books forged from that site, and Randolfo was able to prove that the glossary is in error.

    Aramaic also is not a dead language. There are people who speak the modern aramaic.
     
  17. Dead? here are villages in Syria, etc... that still speak it:
    http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/malul.htm
    http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/a/ar/aramaic_language.html
    http://www.freep.com/entertainment/movies/aram26_20040226.htm

    Oh, don't forget Mel Gibson's movie, you know, the one that talks about Christ in aramaic & starts this arguement in the first place
    http://www.passion-movie.com/aramaic/index.html

    Like in the movie "Signs", what you need is someone to sprinkle holy water on you, but I'm afraid you'll melt like like the witch in "WoOZ".

    Oh, & BTW, you're a 'xian', I'm a Christian, there's a diff, but you couldn't tell cause you are filled withh hate, you love only things, ideas & people that think like you.
     

Share This Page