[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]hl wh 0r9c hr9s M0qd 0m 0rbgd Jwkl Plm 0nyk wh fP0[/font]
afla hu kyana malef l'khun d'gavra ma d'qa'em sa`areh sa`ara hu leh
Doth not nature teach you, that in a man, if his hair groweth long, it is a reproach to him? (Murdock)
Shlama akhi,
thanks for sharing! i'm actually in chapter 10 of that book right now. what a witty phonetic wordplay! and of course, when we move to the Greek texts, there is no similar construction. so how did that amazing translator of Greek to Aramaic manage to make the Aramaic more interesting, yet again??? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> <!-- s
arcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="
arcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- s
arcasm: -->
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
that "in" a man? Seems to me that the Aramaic has got it all wrong and was not translated from the Greek correctly. The Greek doesn't even have the word "in" as part of the verse. Any man having long hair does not have that "sense" of reproach "in" himself, or he wouldn't keep wearing that long hair, the reason is because he isn't being taught by nature "in" himself.
As the Greek says, and exactly what happens, when anyone, or in this case myself, looks at a man with long hair i feel my instinct (nature) telling me that it is unseemly and inappropriate and i feel a derogatory sense toward him, thus the word reproach you quote, or as the King James says "shame." So nature is indeed telling "me," not telling the man who has the long hair, which is what the syntax of the Aramaic is clearly saying.
As usual the Greek makes perfect sense. "Does not even nature itself teach you, that if a man has long hair, it is "a" disgrace upon him.
Again as i asserted in my first two posts in this forum. How on earth you guys deduce that Paul sent Aramaic epistles to "Greek speaking Gentiles" is beyond me. Same goes for the Ephesians and majority of the "Greek audience" Paul wrote to in most all his epistles. No amount of cross-linked speculation or misconstruing of historical information can get past this fact. Paul was the apostle to the "Gentiles" not to the "Jews speaking Aramaic" in Greece. And a great multitude believed and turned to the faith. Which means they were made up of mostly Greek speaking Greeks and Gentiles, not Jews. And even if they were Jews they would have been speaking Greek anyway because thats where they lived, or at the least it would have been their primary language.
Zardak,
Please make sure you check what The Aramaic Scriptures REALLY says...before you judge its Text, with some mans translation of it. There us NO "in" present in the Aramaic Text for this verse.
Check for yourself here: And PLEASE, get to know the Aramaic Text, rather than some English translation of it, so you don't become misled by it and think to condemn the Word of God.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=1Corinthians+11:14&source=ubs&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyz ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%
That's just Murdock's translation... the Aramaic and the Greek completely agree in this verse (minus the wordplay in the Greek).