Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Cornelius in Acts 10
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Shlama,

Acts chapter 10 has the story of Cornelius, the Roman cohort captain who feared Alaha and whose unique conversion began the movement to evangelize the Gentiles.

In every instance where he is referenced in this chapter, his name is given in both the Aramaic AND the Greek texts as [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Swylnrwq[/font] Qurneleus / kornjliov Korneleos, respectively.

However, in 10:3, where the messenger of Alaha speaks to him, and in 10:31, where the messenger???s words are recounted, he is called [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ylnrwq[/font] Qurnelea / kornjlie Kornelie.

So is this evidence of the messenger of Alaha speaking to the Roman captain in Aramaic??

Josephus said the population of Caesarea was primarily Gentile -- The Jewish War 3:409. The text tells us that he was devout and basically worshipping and living after the manner of the Jews, but was not a convert to Judaism, so it is not surprising to me that he would have understood Aramaic in that sense, but it IS surprising to me that the messenger of Alaha speaks to the Gentile in Aramaic, or so I am guessing, from the unique spelling of the name in the two parts that record the actual conversation. Could this be seen as further evidence of Aramaic primacy?

Just wondering... <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

Chayim b???Moshiach (Life in Messiah),
Jeremy
Jeremy,

This is just me now and I thought I would post this because I have not been our of the forum for several days now. One could take this a number of ways: The text in Acts was written in Aramaic but the conversation between Peter and Corelius (and his sermon to Cornelius and his household) would probably be in Greek. I can not vision Cornelius speaking fluent Aramaic. I think the area of Caesarea would probably be a high Greek speaking region for, to my understanding, the naval yards of the Roman military was present and would include a good number of Roman soldiers (Cornelius included.) So, with the information we do have the dialoge between Peter and Corelius would be Greek. The text could very well have been written in Aramaic but possibly Greek. I have not ruled that out but I would think the balance of evidence goes with the Aramaic being the original. And just remember that even though the original writings of the Peshitta NT were in Aramaic Greek has its place because there is just too much information that Greek was spoken only when one had to speak it. It was a second language to many: AS I read somewhere Greek was the common tongue of many but not the mother tongue of most (as far as those whose ethnicity was semetic.)

All this is just my 2 cents and take if for what its' worth. Oh yes, about the Greek still being important to New Testament studies. I have noticed if their is a particular minor word, say an Aramaic particle, that could decide which way a thought could go I have found in a hand ful of instances that the Greek has been some help.

Take care. Just a thought.

Mike
An example of the Greek being valuable would be Greek particles such "ev", "eis", "dia", "gar", and some other Greek particles which seem to nail down which way some Aramaic verses should go; if you know what I mean. All I am trying to say is that the Greek SEEMS to be more expressive or expansive and has more of a selection of words to use as when a subject is elaborated on. Now, is anyone confused or am I sounding like a university Professor - clear as noon??

Go with Y'shua,

Warmly,

Mike
I meant to say in my 1st post, ". . . because Greek was spoken not only when one had to speak it. It was the common tongue of many but not the mother tongue of those whose ethnicity was semetic." I just meant that Greek was used more than just to get around. Greek was one of those "lingua Franca" languages if not the actual Lingua Franca of the Roman Empire outside of the area of Rome and Italy.

Mike
Shlama akhi Mike,

thank you for your input.
but my pondering was WHY did the heavenly messenger call Cornelius by an Aramaic pronunciation of his name and not a Greek one.

i would have no issue with a Roman captain being able to speak Greek AND Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew, since he was seemingly very devout, but i am surprised to find that in the instances where the messenger speaks to him and where that conversation was recounted, that both the Greek and the Aramaic texts preserve the Aramaic rendition of his name. however, Keepha is seen speaking with him, and in that place the Aramaic preserves the Greek pronunciation of his name.

do you see why i was surprised? it seems like the messenger really spoke to him in Aramaic! i'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps, to be as liberal with the idea as we can, it was because he was a learned man in the Aramaic, since he was obviously very involved with Judaism of the day. or was it that Aramaic was more prevalent a language in the eastern Roman empire than scholars would like to admit?


Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah),
Jeremy
Mike Kar Wrote:An example of the Greek being valuable would be Greek particles such "ev", "eis", "dia", "gar", and some other Greek particles which seem to nail down which way some Aramaic verses should go; if you know what I mean. All I am trying to say is that the Greek SEEMS to be more expressive or expansive and has more of a selection of words to use as when a subject is elaborated on. Now, is anyone confused or am I sounding like a university Professor - clear as noon??

Go with Y'shua,

Warmly,

Mike

Shlama akhi Mike,

i don't know if these particular terms are the best examples, though. haven't you noticed when doing textual comparisons that the above-cited terms seem to be prevalent in the realm of variants? in my limited Greek ventures of the NT, i have found so many of them, aside from simple spelling variations, come in the form of either omissions or inclusions of variations of the above terms.

i have no contest with the idea that Greek can indeed be more precise or expressive, but when there are the variants present in so many cases, how does one determine WHICH reading would be preferred in the Greek when the Aramaic only has one reading? see what i mean? although expressive and possibly able to help clarify a possibly obscure Aramaic rendering, the variants of the above-cited terms don't help to clarify anything.... <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

just some thoughts on that point to consider! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah),
Jeremy
Burning one Wrote:i have no contest with the idea that Greek can indeed be more precise or expressive

Hands down the best language to use in Science, it's no coincidence that most medical and scientific terms are expressed in all languages by using Greek roots. As a medium of Spiritual ideas, however, Semitic languages are preferred since they tend by nature to better convey the abstract and the metaphysical.
Paul Younan Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:i have no contest with the idea that Greek can indeed be more precise or expressive

Hands down the best language to use in Science, it's no coincidence that most medical and scientific terms are expressed in all languages by using Greek roots. As a medium of Spiritual ideas, however, Semitic languages are preferred since they tend by nature to better convey the abstract and the metaphysical.


Shlama akhi Paul,


i agree that the Semitic languages are definitely preferable for Scripture. though i do think that when translating the original Semitic into another language, the Greek language really was the best one to translate into at the time, due to the precise nature of the language. the only issue is that there are so MANY variants in the Greek that it is too often the case that no help is provided by the Greek reading. thus, we go back to the Aramaic and (for me, at least) must rely on those to whom the language is fluent for the best renderings and explanations.

which of course makes me wonder what YOU think about the Aramaic presentation of Cornelius' name in Acts 10:3 & 31?


Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah),
Jeremy
Is that really an Aramaic pronunciation of his name?

To me, it looks like the angel is speaking to Cornelius in GREEK, with proper Greek inflection. That is, in vocative case, as the Greek NT shows. Note that the Peshitta text elsewhere writes Cornelius with a Simkath on the end, which reflects the proper nominative case for his name.

Someone could use this to argue that the Peshitta text of this passage is derived from the Greek because it copied the spelling of his name as it was found in different sentences, but I don't think this is necessarily true. Except for the angelic quotations, Cornelius' name is always spelled the same, with a Simkath reflecting nominative case. I think names are generally borrowed from Greek into other languages in nominative case, which is why we get extra S's on the end, as in the name Jesus, for example. I think the Peshitta would have spelled Cornelius' name this way even if he were the object of the sentence. However, there is no example of this because in this short passage, when he is referred to by name, he is always the subject of the sentence and thus coincidentally matches nominative case with the Greek text.

Then why does the spelling of those two verses reflect vocative case? I would say the Peshitta is accurately recording how Cornelius was addressed.

bar Sinko
Burning ONe,

Shorst answer for now but I may elaborate a little later. Correct you are: The variences in the Greek tend to, many times, not be of any help at all. Some of these dilemnas though are solved if one sticks to the Byzantine MS tradition of MSs

Also, in a very brief nutshell, I will bring up the quote by Y'shua who said that by the testimony of 2 or 3 men, a matter (case) is established. This quote is in John 8:17, I believe. But I have to go now but I think you know where I may be going with this. Basically, if 2 or 3 MSs that are different and from a different date and from a different hand(scribe) then the variation in question is to be accepted. May sound far off but I can tell you why, maybe next week, why I believe this. Have to go. In a rush. Please excuse me. Tks

\Warmly,

Mike Karoules
January 30, 2009

It looks to me as if the Aramaic text of Acts 10: 1-3 were based on the Greek text.

The man???s name was ???Cornelie???. In Greek a male name ending in a vowel has a sigma ending in the nominative case. Hence it is written ???Cornelios??? in verse 1 to adhere to proper Greek grammar. In both cases it is translated the same into English, ???Cornelius??? .

The same story applies the reason the Messiah???s name varies in the Greek text. It is Yeshua in Aramaic. In Greek it becomes Iesou in the objective case and Iesous in the nominative case. Here are some variations in Greek based upon grammar rules.

Luke 1: 16 Iesous
Luke 1: 25 Iesoun
Luke 8: 34 Iesou

It is customary to translate all of these into English as ???Jesus???. That's also why "Barabba" is called "Barabbas" in the English BIble.

Since the Aramaic text seems to follow the Greek grammar rules, it looks to me as if the Aramaic is a translation of a Greek text in this portion of Acts.

Is there another explanation?

Otto
ograabe Wrote:January 30, 2009

It looks to me as if the Aramaic text of Acts 10: 1-3 were based on the Greek text.

The man???s name was ???Cornelie???. In Greek a male name ending in a vowel has a sigma ending in the nominative case. Hence it is written ???Cornelios??? in verse 1 to adhere to proper Greek grammar. In both cases it is translated the same into English, ???Cornelius??? .

The same story applies the reason the Messiah???s name varies in the Greek text. It is Yeshua in Aramaic. In Greek it becomes Iesou in the objective case and Iesous in the nominative case. Here are some variations in Greek based upon grammar rules.

Luke 1: 16 Iesous
Luke 1: 25 Iesoun
Luke 8: 34 Iesou

It is customary to translate all of these into English as ???Jesus???. That's also why "Barabba" is called "Barabbas" in the English BIble.

Since the Aramaic text seems to follow the Greek grammar rules, it looks to me as if the Aramaic is a translation of a Greek text in this portion of Acts.

Is there another explanation?

Otto

Shlama Akhi Otto,

Actually in 10:3 the Greek is in the Vocative (Nominative for Address, ("Cornelie!") The Vocative Case is the case of direct address....that the person is being addressed and that form of address is in a sense a title.

In any case, in ancient Greek and Latin, the masculine name normally ending in Sigma can (but not necessarily) drop the final Sigma when in the Vocative. Cornelius was a Latin, in fact 10:1 tells us that he belonged to the Italian Regiment. His name is Latin as well.

Whether or not the angel addressed him in Greek or Latin, is irrelevant anyway since both would drop the final Sigma in his name when directly addressing him. That an angel addressed Cornelius, a Latin man, in Aramaic can be ruled out by common sense. I highly doubt an occupying soldier like Cornelius knew Aramaic any better than an American soldier in Afghanistan knows the Afghan tongue.

Aramaic (actually all Semitic tongues) lack a special grammatical category for the Vocative. Rather, when someone is being addressed it is proper to do so in the Emphatic case ("[O] Cornelius!"). In the Emphatic case, the state of nouns change. For instance, "Ab" (father) becomes "Aba"...."Beth" (house) becomes "Betha"...as you can see, the difference is the appending of a final Aleph.

Which is what you find not only in Acts 10:3 when directly addressing Cornelius in the Emphatic "Qornelia" (Cornelee in Greek Vocative), but also in Acts 1:1 where you have Theophilus being addressed in the Emphatic "Tawpeela" (Theophilee in Greek Vocative).

In other words, you are seeing both the Greek and Aramaic (and even Latin for that matter), behave properly within their own grammatical rules.

But again, I don't think Cornelius would have been well versed enough in Aramaic, the dialogue here probably occurred in Greek or most likely in Latin.
Shlama Akhan bar-Sinko,

bar Sinko Wrote:Is that really an Aramaic pronunciation of his name?

Yes, Qurnelia is the Emphatic Aramaic of the Latin name Cornelius. As Cornelie is the Vocative Greek of the Latin name Cornelius.

bar Sinko Wrote:To me, it looks like the angel is speaking to Cornelius in GREEK, with proper Greek inflection.

Greek or Latin or Aramaic, the grammar is proper in all three languages. I would tend to think it was in Latin, since he was an Italian soldier.

bar Sinko Wrote:That is, in vocative case, as the Greek NT shows.

Well, the Greek and Latin versions show the vocative case (grammar is the same in that regards with both Latin and Greek.) In the Peshitta, it shows the Emphatic case. There is no vocative in Aramaic, the closest usage is the Emphatic when the person is being addressed directly by the speaker.

bar Sinko Wrote:Note that the Peshitta text elsewhere writes Cornelius with a Simkath on the end, which reflects the proper nominative case for his name.

The base form for the borrowing of names from Greek and Latin since the days of Alexander were the genitive form (with the Sigma appended.)

bar Sinko Wrote:Someone could use this to argue that the Peshitta text of this passage is derived from the Greek because it copied the spelling of his name as it was found in different sentences, but I don't think this is necessarily true.

Did it? If that were the case the Peshitta would read "Qurneelee" (with a Yodh on the end), not "Qurnelia" (with an Aleph on the end.) In fact we find the reading "Qurnelia" (with an Aleph on the end) signifying the Emphatic case, as we find "Tawpeela" (Theophilus) in Acts 1:1 (note also that the Greek in Acts 1:1 reflects the proper Greek form, "Theophilie", since the name is in the Vocative case...he is being addressed directly.)

bar Sinko Wrote:Except for the angelic quotations, Cornelius' name is always spelled the same, with a Simkath reflecting nominative case.

Not having anything to do with the angelic quotations, however. It's a matter of grammar in each case, being that a direct address to him in the Peshitta results in the Simkath being dropped (cf. Acts 10:31, or Acts 10:1 in the case of Theophilus)

Let me give you another example that is exactly a correlation to his example:

The conversion of Saul, in Acts 9:1-9

Look at the Greek for these verses. In verse one, we find his Hebrew name in the usual Nominative case ("Saulos"), but when the angel addresses him in verse 4 - what do you see? The Sigma is dropped, is it not?

More importantly, and this is key, the account is repeated by Paul himself in Acts 22. Take note that the same feature is there in the Greek grammar.....despite the fact that it explicitly states that Paul was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect (Acts 22:2).

bar Sinko Wrote:I think names are generally borrowed from Greek into other languages in nominative case, which is why we get extra S's on the end, as in the name Jesus, for example.

Yes.

bar Sinko Wrote:I think the Peshitta would have spelled Cornelius' name this way even if he were the object of the sentence. However, there is no example of this because in this short passage, when he is referred to by name, he is always the subject of the sentence and thus coincidentally matches nominative case with the Greek text.

bar Sinko Wrote:Then why does the spelling of those two verses reflect vocative case? I would say the Peshitta is accurately recording how Cornelius was addressed.

I think so, too.

Look at the Greek account of how Zechariah was addressed by the angel in Luke 1:13, and compare with the previous verse. As expected, the Greek NT follows Greek rules. But like Saul's encounter with the angel, this conversation was also most likely in Aramaic.

For that matter, check on Matthew 1:19-20. Never does "Joseph" have the S ending, even in the Greek (unlike Zecharias above). So the name itself is the same when in a Nominative and a Vocative case (v. 19, and 20).

Bad Greek grammar, or just irregularity when borrowing Semitic names?
I am now 100% certain that the conversation took place in Latin:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=3utEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=cornelius+latin+vocative&source=bl&ots=bxSA3zZRKu&sig=d-erhss4G_iA1N9o0WXqOmDhfJA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result">http://books.google.com/books?id=3utEAA ... &ct=result</a><!-- m -->

Looks like Bar-Sinko's explanation is the best:

bar-Sinko Wrote:I would say the Peshitta is accurately recording how Cornelius was addressed.

So both the Greek and the Aramaic accurately reflect the conversation in Latin between the angel and Cornelius. The Aramaic adds the Aleph to form the Emphatic.
Rafa Wrote:Hi Akhi Paul! This is actually an important subject for me personally. Think about this:

Quote:But again, I don't think Cornelius would have been well versed enough in Aramaic, the dialogue here probably occurred in Greek or most likely in Latin.

This is important to me personally because of the following: why would Meshikha/God respond in latin ( a language which would be, in this period of time at least, containing pagan concepts through and through) to Cornelius? Think about it. One of the biggest arguments which convinced me the NT MUST be Aramaic is that this language is considered adequate for the needs of scripture. It might be the "pure language" referenced in the Tanakh. Meshika blessed Aramaic just by speaking it. So...what's up with a latin conversation? I like Latin, but it might have contained paganism in that period no?

Shlama Akhi Rafa,

Aramaic was used as a language of pagans before Judeo-Christianity, wasn't it? Also, the language of Abraham's father, Terah the idol-maker, was pagan too right?

When the demoniac answered and declared his name as "Legion", was that not in Latin?

I have no problem with God or angels speaking to men in a language that they comprehend, like English today. It's the very reason Meshikha preached in Aramaic - it was the language the masses understood back then. If they had still spoken Hebrew as a vernacular, He would have preached in Hebrew.
Pages: 1 2