דבר Davar or אמר Amar? - Yoh'anan 1.1
Shalom,
Some people says that Yoh'anán 1.1 should read -
בראשית היה הדבר והדבר היה את האלהים ואלהים היה הדבר
BERESHIT HAYA HADAVAR V'HADAVAR HAYA ET HAELOHIM V'ELOHIM HAYA HADAVAR
In the begining was the Davar, and the Davar was with Elohim and Elohim was the Davar.
But some people say that it should be -
בראשית היה המאמר והמאמר היה את האלהים ואלהים היה המאמר
BERESHIT HAYA HA'MA'AMAR V'HA'MA'AMAR HAYA ET HAELOHIM V'ELOHIM HAYA HA'MA'AMAR
In the begining was the Amar, and the Amar was with Elohim and Elohim was the Amar.
They say this because the Pirqe Avot Pereq 5 says that with ten Ma'amarot was created the world, the ten ma'amarot are the ten 'And Elohim said' of Bereshit 1.
What is the difference between אמר Amar and דבר Davar?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on -
In Aramaic, the word in question is "Miltha", which- as I understand it- has no direct equivalent in Hebrew.
-
Permalink Reply by 命 on -
"But some people say that it should be -"
I'm sorry? "Should" ?
Do you have any manuscripts that say this, or are you referring to the speculations of the biased ?
I think people are waaaaaayyyyy too open to the idea of "manuscripts being wrong", and placing way too much trust in their ability to supposedly "decode the real meaning of the scriptures".
Mistranslation is one thing, but presumptuously postulating that the original autographs (manuscripts) are edited/wrong/corrupt is often just pure speculation, leading to nothing good.
I find it scary, to be frank.
It reminds of another case I observed:
a guy claimed that the listing of the tribes in Revelation 7 "actually" includes Dan, even though all manuscripts (to my knowledge, at least) exclude Dan.
His unproven, unsubstantiated theory was/is that the original autograph "actually" lists Dan, and that Dan was misread as "Man", and subsequently interpreted (in all manuscripts and copies) as "Manasseh".
-
Permalink Reply by Yechezquel on -
Thank everyone for your comments, I personally don't think that Milta is the word that Yoh'anan (hellenized as John) was using in his hebrew mind, because personally I am of the idea that every title of the Mashia'h its found in the divine hebrew scripture, the Tana'h. I also think that maybe the root of the aramaic Miltha comes from the hebrew word for Milá. Mar Jacob suggested that 'Memra', corresponds to the Syrian Aramaic term Milta. In rabbinic literature Milta is translated as word or matter, like for example- the Halachic concept of Lemigdar Milta – literally, ‘to erect a fence around the matter’ o "a fence around the words" of Torah. In the writtings of the netzarim or Ketuvim Netzarim (NT) it is obvious that the word Milta is an equivalent of the word Davar, I think there has to be no discussion about it, by analyzing every time that the word Milta is used in the Ketuvim Netzarim it is obvious that it is an equivalent for the hebrew word Davar.
In other hand, I think there has to be a relation between Davar and Amar... Every Amar / Speech is or has Davar / Word.
This is what I also have found in Internet-
R. Hutner asks another fascinating question. When describing how G-d created the world with ten statements, the Mishnah uses the term Ma’amarot, from the Hebrew word ma’amar, from the root aleph, mem, reish, whereas the Ten Commandments are called Dibrot, from the Hebrew word ledaber, with the rootdalet, bet, reish. In Hebrew, we have two options for the verb “to speak”: lomar andledaber. Asks R. Hutner, why is it that when we talk about the ten statements with which the world was created the Sages of the Talmud use the word Ma’amarot and when we talk about the Ten Commandments they call them Dibrot? What is the difference between ma’amar and dibur?
Communication can take a soft form or a harsher form. In Hebrew the aleph-mem-reish root is the softer form of communication, amira. The dalet-bet-reish root, is the tougher, more demanding form of communication, dibur. R. Hutner explains that the softer language, amira, is a one-way statement. Sometimes in a conversation you make a statement which does not require a response and is not demanding anything from the listener; it merely relays information. The term ma’amar conveys a particular position but does not require anything of the listener, whereas the termdibrot coveys a statement which does requires a response.
-
Permalink Reply by Yechezquel on
-
This people comes to this idea because they say that the main theme of the early verses in Bereshit is not so much the fact that Elohim created the heaven and earth, for in fact the Torah mentions it clearly, but the main theme, that in which the emphasis is when it happened ויאמר אלהים יהי אור "Vayomer Elohim yehi or / and Elohim said, Let there be light". They said that Yoh'anan was actually makin a Midrash of the first verses of Bereshit, so when he talks about the word in Yoh'anan 1.1 he is making an allusion to the word and concept Amar used in Bereshit 1.
I personally prefer to have an open mind and analyze various opinions instead of attacking some people just because I believe that I am the possessor of the absolute truth and that everyone has to believe what I believe it is the true.
Christian said:"But some people say that it should be -"
I'm sorry? "Should" ?
Do you have any manuscripts that say this, or are you referring to the speculations of the biased ?
I think people are waaaaaayyyyy too open to the idea of "manuscripts being wrong", and placing way too much trust in their ability to supposedly "decode the real meaning of the scriptures".
Mistranslation is one thing, but presumptuously postulating that the original autographs (manuscripts) are edited/wrong/corrupt is often just pure speculation, leading to nothing good.
I find it scary, to be frank.
It reminds of another case I observed:
a guy claimed that the listing of the tribes in Revelation 7 "actually" includes Dan, even though all manuscripts (to my knowledge, at least) exclude Dan.
His unproven, unsubstantiated theory was/is that the original autograph "actually" lists Dan, and that Dan was misread as "Man", and subsequently interpreted (in all manuscripts and copies) as "Manasseh".
-
Permalink Reply by 命 on
-
"I personally prefer to have an open mind and analyze various opinions instead of attacking some people just because I believe that I am the possessor of the absolute truth and that everyone has to believe what I believe it is the true."
Believe what you want, but you should know that if you have no manuscripts backing up your case you're just making things up. Anyone can say "I believe this is what the scriptures ACTUALLY intended, before the Jews came and redacted them...." in fact Mohammed and Jo Smith based their entire lives on this.
Do you have any manuscripts to substantiate the position you outlined ?
-
Permalink Reply by Yechezquel on
-
Christian you said - Do you have any manuscripts to substantiate the position you outlined ?
What position? I haven't said my position, I just wrote the format of what some people believe. Like I just said, I prefer to have an open mind and analyze various opinions...
-
Permalink Reply by 命 on
-
You've offered us the position that the Scriptures actually say "amar" instead of "davar".
Do you have any manuscripts where this is the case?
In other words, do you have any manuscripts to support the contention you outlined here, that the Scriptures say:
בראשית היה המאמר והמאמר היה את האלהים ואלהים היה המאמר
BERESHIT HAYA HA'MA'AMAR V'HA'MA'AMAR HAYA ET HAELOHIM V'ELOHIM HAYA HA'MA'AMAR
Is this found in any manuscripts?
You say you're analyzing opinions; are these opinions you offered us above substantiated by any actual manuscripts?
Do not all the manuscripts read thusly, in one language or another:
בראשית היה הדבר והדבר היה את האלהים ואלהים היה הדבר
BERESHIT HAYA HADAVAR V'HADAVAR HAYA ET HAELOHIM V'ELOHIM HAYA HADAVAR
Iejezquel Ben Efrayim said:
Christian you said - Do you have any manuscripts to substantiate the position you outlined ?
What position? I haven't said my position, I just wrote the format of what some people believe. Like I just said, I prefer to have an open mind and analyze various opinions...
-
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on
-
Currently after a brief's pondering, i believe amar means "say", whereas dabar means "word". In other words, everytime you dabar, you amar, but every time you amar, you do not necessarily dabar. Amar is the idea of the broader understanding of communication, whereas dabar is the more specific means of communication; that is, human language.
-
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on
-
Except that in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin, "Dan" and "Man" are spelled completely different. Someone must have access to a Tardis, in which they could have done a time warp to 1611, misread one letter in the English translation, and then gone back and then completely changed the whole word in all available Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin manuscripts.
That's not just far fetched / improbable- it's ridiculously impossible.
Christian said:...Dan was misread as "Man", and subsequently interpreted (in all manuscripts and copies) as "Manasseh".
-
Permalink Reply by Mikha El on -
The HRV renders it thus...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Eloah, and the Word was Eloah.
This being taken from the "Old Syriac and Peshitta". The actual Aramaic differs slightly from what is posted.
Could you provide your source. Thanks in advance.
-
Permalink Reply by 命 on
-
I agree.
Its ridiculous how much junk we spout when we start to think we "know better" than the manuscripts themselves..
J. Jury said:
Except that in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin, "Dan" and "Man" are spelled completely different. Someone must have access to a Tardis, in which they could have done a time warp to 1611, misread one letter in the English translation, and then gone back and then completely changed the whole word in all available Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin manuscripts.
That's not just far fetched / improbable- it's ridiculously impossible.
Christian said:...Dan was misread as "Man", and subsequently interpreted (in all manuscripts and copies) as "Manasseh".
© 2013 Created by James Trimm.
