Відео

Glad it was helpful!

@markstevenfrancois I'd like to learn this language to enable my study more understandable . How can I do it sir 🤔

@markstevenfrancois under your guidance personally

I think most people can only write with one hand regardless of the script they use. My writing would be a mess if I tried to do it left-handed. That being said, when I see people write in English with their left hand, they often have to twist their hand around to make it work. At least when they're doing handwriting/cursive.

You should be able to find the PDF here: markfrancois.wordpress.com/syriac-grammar/

@markstevenfrancois 🙏

I'm glad it was helpful.

Actually, it seems like Peter was fine with some of the changes. After all, he called him Iesous rather than Yeshua in his letters.

That's a good question. When I use the term "'Masoretic tradition," I'm using it equivalently to the Pre-Masoretic Text or Proto-Masoreic Text---there is a slight difference between the two terms, but it doesn't make much of a difference when dealing with daughter versions like the Vulgate and Peshitta. In other words, by "Masoretic tradition," I mean, the consonantal tradition that was eventually used by the Masoretes. But you're right that it would have been precise to use the term Pre-Masoretic or Proto-Masoretic. If I were to do this video again, I would probably say that these versions used the same consonantal tradition that was eventually used in Masoretic manuscripts. As for value, it depends on what you mean by philological value. As for the date of the two manuscripts you mentioned, the date of the manuscripts themselves isn't as significant as the date of the text that's preserved by the manuscripts. For example, the Isaiah text in Codex Leningrandensis preserves an older text than 1QISAa.

@@markstevenfrancois Thanks for the answer! I mention the two codices just as the most famous witnesses of the masoretic tradition, actually. I know that the date of a manuscript isn't necessarily important in some cases: "recentiores non deteriores"!

Thanks for watching the video and leaving a comment. I use both A.D. and C.E. depending on the context. In scholarly circles, C.E. is now the norm so I'll often use it. That being said, keep in mind that AD is Latin---not all Christians come from a Latin tradition. The use of A.D. is a convention that was invented centuries after the Bible was completed. Conventions sometimes change.

@@markstevenfrancois you're right, conventions change, didn't think about that, and also vary among traditions. Do the Syriac Christians have a separate calendar system?

Are you talking about the "s" sound in the middle? My understanding is that this was simply how "s" was spelled in a non-initial position. This is pretty consistent on tomb stones I have seen and books I have read from that time period. But if you have something you can share about it being pronounced as "sh", I would be happy to hear it. Or if I completely misunderstood your question, let me know too.

thank you

I would suggest getting a copy from Gorgias Press. I haven't purchased it myself, but they have a new Syriac-English New Testament, with the Syriac on one side and the English on the other side. It was translated by very good scholars. Here is the link: www.gorgiaspress.com/syriac-english-new-testament-gilded

@@markstevenfrancois I think that will be a Western peshitto not the Eastern peshitta.

@@michaelp3951 You're right. I prefer the Eastern Peshitta. However, they are not easy to get a hold of. The one I use is the Mosul edition. Gorgias press sells them but they are big and expensive. You can get PDFs of them for free on archive.org. But I'm not sure where to get an eastern one that isn't very expensive.

Thanks for leaving a comment. What do you do with the fact that the name Joshua is rendered as Jesus in the Greek version of the Old Testament, which predates Jesus? And what do you do with the fact that shin is pronounced with the "sh" sound in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke?

Who said it was written in Hebrew?

@@markstevenfrancois The New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the conquests of Alexander the Great although it was written about 200 years prior, (335-323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek

For sure. I studied Koine Greek in school for several years. I’m just wondering why you’re mentioning it here. Did the video give you the impression that I thought the New Testament was written in Hebrew?

Glad it was helpful.

Absolutely. They just took the Greek word and spelled it in Syriac.

Three Steps: 1. Learn the names of the letters in order. The best way is through an alphabet song. The first letter of each name will give you a basic idea of how they sound. 2. Learn how to write the letters of the alphabet. The best way to do this is by using tracing sheets. I have some on my website. 3. Spend a lot of time practicing how to pronounce Syriac words you are learning. It takes time but the best way to learn the pronunciation is to practice it over and over and over again. Hope that helps!

Thanks for leaving a comment. I take it that you don't accept the authority of the New Testament then?

so bad at this something like, messiah yeshua head ? and ? our God great ... of all of us .. truth and christian .. his father

Thanks for leaving a comment. That's a good question. Lots of languages divide nouns into masculine and feminine nouns. Some languages even have neuter nouns (like German). For English speakers, this can create a problem. We tend to think that if a noun is masculine or feminine then there must be something about the nature of the noun that is masculine of feminine. However, that's not the way that gender works with nouns. The gender of a noun, apart from words that denote things that are biologically male or female, has nothing to do with being male or female in the real world. Nouns are classified as masculine or feminine based on whether they follow the pattern of nouns that represent things that are masculine or feminine in the real world. So house is classified as masculine because it follows the same pattern and interacts with other parts of speech in the same way that the word man would. But there is nothing masculine about a house. Same with the word for little girl in German. The word for little girl in German is neuter. But that doesn't mean that little girls have no gender. It just happens to be that words that end in "chen" in German are all neuter. Hope that helps.

@@markstevenfrancois I am a native french speaker and I grew up in an Arabic country. In these languages genders are well defined and are very meaningful. So to me Malkutha, if we want to refer to kingdom, which is not necessary what was meant here as Semitic languages have great possibilities for many different meanings for a word, then it should be translated as Queendom.... 😁..... You seem to define the gender by the way the word is written. Yet in French and many other languages the nature of what the word describes defines the way it is written with some exceptions, or the gender of the pronoun. It seems that the word maidchen was used in the past to describe the state of being a child, therefore the neuter gender is understandable and it has persisted through time.

@@LaurenceMartinSaskThanks for the context on your language background. I'll just mention three things quickly. 1. Queendom isn't a word in English so we can't use it when translating from Syriac to English. 2. Even if it were, queendom wouldn't be accurate anyways. Queendom in English would imply that the kingdom was ruled by a Queen, which was virtually never the case in places that spoke Semitic languages. So it would give the wrong impression. 3. Your understanding of gender in grammar doesn't really reflect how linguists understand gender in grammar. It is standard for linguists to say that apart from words that are biologically male or female, the gender of a word is simply a grammatical category and has no significance for understanding whether the entity denoted by the word is male or female by nature. For example, house in French is feminine but in Hebrew and Aramaic it is masculine. In German it is neuter. In Syriac, the word desert is masculine but in German it is feminine. In French, "chair" is feminine but in German it is masculine. For Mädchen, the neuter gender doesn't have anything to do with children being seen without gender before puberty. The word "boy" is masculine. The reason why Mädchen is neuter is because "chen" is a diminutive and every word with the "chen" ending is neuter. For example, Problemchen is neuter. As for malkutha, there are plenty of nouns that follow the same pattern and no one would try to translate them in a way that makes it seem like they are feminine by nature. "Asiutha" means "cure". "dmutha" means "image". "hayyutha" means "animal". "Hadutha" means "joy".

@@markstevenfrancois thank you so much for taking the time to answer with great details 🙏

Thanks! I appreciate it.

Unfortunately, there isn't, but I'm sure this video is due for an update at some point soon.

Thanks for leaving such a detailed comment. I think I understand what you are saying. There are a couple of problems with some of the points you made. First, the fact that Tyndale translated the New Testament directly from Greek can’t be used to determine how he pronounced the name Jesus when he rendered it into English. This can be seen by the way that modern translators render names that begin with a “Y” sound in both Hebrew and English. Modern translations are translated directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, in case after case, when Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek names are rendered into English, they are virtually always rendered using the traditional English spellings, not a spelling that corresponds to their pronunciation in the original language. Instead of “Shelomo”, we render it “Solomon”. Instead of Moshe, we render it “Moses”. Instead of Yoshi-yahu, we render it Isaiah. Instead of Ya‘qov or Yaqobus, we render it James. The reality is that English translators tend to use traditional English pronunciation for biblical names, which have been affected by Latin spelling and French pronunciation. Tyndale would have known the correct pronunciation of Jesus in Greek, but this does not mean that he used the Greek pronunciation when reading an English translation. He might have, but we can’t use the fact that he translated from the original languages to prove that point. Second, Wycliffe and Tyndale almost certainly did not used the letters “Ih” to represent the “Y” sound in the name Jesus. The letters IHS were originally used in Greek as an abbreviation for Jesus (ΙΗΣ). The “H” actually stands for a long “e” sound in Greek, which is the second letter of the name Jesus in Greek. This abbreviation came into Latin as IHS. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the abbreviation came into English as ihu, which would sometimes be expanded to ihesus, ihesu, etc. So the spelling of the name Jesus with “Jh” likely has nothing to do with the “Y” pronunciation but with the traditional abbreviation used for Jesus in Latin and its rendering in middle English. In all likelihood, Tyndale and the people who read his translation, would have used the traditional English pronunciation with the “J” sound at the beginning. Readers of the KJV 1611 would have pronounced it the same way, even though it was spelled “Iesus”-the use of “J” to represent the “J” sound wasn’t universal when the KJV was first translated. A good resource for this is the full version of the Oxford English Dictionary. Hope that makes sense.

Sorry about that. It shouldn't be password protected. Send an email to classicalsyriac@hotmail.com and I'll send you the sheets.