Shlama Akhay,

Much hoopla has been created by the Greek Primacist arguments regarding Yukhanan John 21:15-17, and how Meshikha is supposed to have played with the meanings of the Greek words for love - "Agape" and "Phileo".

The plain truth is that "Agape" and "Phileo" are merely synonyms! The reading of the Greek versions of Yukhanan 3:35 and 5:20 (same author\translator) makes this very clear!

• John 3:35 - the Father loves (Agapao) the Son
  John 5:20 - the Father loves (Phileo) the Son
  

• Matt.10:37 He that loveth father or mother
  
  John 12:25 He that loveth his life
  
  Matt.23:6 love the uppermost rooms
  
  John 5:20 the Father loveth the Son
  
  John 16:27 the Father Himself loveth you
  
  John 20:2 the other disciple, whom Jesus loved
  
  Titus 2:4 women to be sober, to love their husbands
  

• John 12:43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise from God
  
  John 3:19 but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
  
  2 Pet 2:15 who loved the wages of wickedness.
  
  2 Tim 4:10 Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me...
  

• Concerning John the beloved disciple:
  John 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved (agapeo)...
  
  John 20:2 She came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved (phileo)...
  

• Luke 11:43 "...love (agapeo) the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the market-places."
  
  Luke 20:46 "...love (phileo) to be greeted in the market-places and have the most important seats in the synagogues."
  

Shlama Akhay,

In Luqa 9:53, we read the Greek with astonishment:

"....because his face was set toward Jerusalem"

Face was set toward Jerusalem? What does that mean in Greek?

In Semitic idiom, "to set one's face..." means 'to make up one's mind', and is quite frequent in Semitic thought. Reference the following verses:

• Amos 9:4
  
  Jeremiah 3:12
  
  Jeremiah 21:10
  
  Jeremiah 42:15
  
  Jeremiah 44:12
  
  2 Kings 12:17
  
  Daniel 11:17
  
  Ezekiel 6:1
  
  Ezekiel 13:17
  
  Ezekiel 14:8
  
  Ezekiel 15:7
  

Shlama Akhay,

In the Greek versions of Luke, we read:

Quote:And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
(Luke 10:6)

Shlama Akhay,

In the Greek versions of Matthew 7:6, we read with astonishment:

Quote:Give not a holy thing to dogs: and cast not your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Quote:qwd$#2 N qd$)
1 JLAGal,JLATg,Sam,Syr ear-,nose-ring
LS2 649
LS2 v: qdA$A)

Quote:qwd$#3 N qwd$)
1 Syr consecration
2 Syr eucharist
3 Syr voice crying 'holy'
LS2 649
LS2 v: quwdA$A)

Quote:qwd$ N
1 passim holiness
2 Syr holy place
3 JLATg pl. consecrated objects
4 JLATg various sacrifices
LS2 649
LS2 v: quwd$A)

Quote:Hang not earrings on dogs: and cast not your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Quote:Shlama Akhay,

So far I've seen 6 references in the Targum to the Torah (Onkelos) containing the root QD$ for earring/nose-ring/ring. They are:

Gen 24:22
Gen 24:30
Gen 24:47
Gen 35:4
Exo 32:2
Exo 32:3

The significance of this holy vs earrings debate is unfolding before our very eyes. I think what we've seen so far contributes 4 very important elements for Aramaic primacy:

#1: The mistranslation to Holy establishes that the Peshitta has preserved Meshikha's original teaching thereby rendering every other version as incorrect beginning with the Greek.

#2: The correct reading reveals Yeshua's use of a parallelism absent in every other version.

#3: The finding of the QD$/earring root in Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (the Targum) establishes the fact that Peshitta Matthew is *not* the work of post Nicene Syriac translators (since even Assyrians are not familiar with the QD$/earring root. Rather it is the work of Mathew himself, a Palestinian Jewish writer.

#4: The use of the QD$/earring root in Mathews Gospel proves that Mathew wrote in Aramaic and *not* in Hebrew since both extant Hebrew Matthews follow the mistake of Greek Matthew even to the extent of adding "flesh" and "thing" (Shem Tov & Dutillet, respectfully) to force the verse to make sense.

Shlama Akhay,

You've often heard it said that the Peshitta is a revision of the "Old Syriac" - towards the Byzantine Greek (!) text.

In the Greek manuscripts of the NT - they were gracious enough to preserve for us the words of Meshikha on the Cross - "My God, my God....."

Now, the Byzantine Greek text reads jli - ("Eli")

Please see the scan below comparing Old Scratch with the Peshitta.

If you look closely, you will see that the Peshitta reads [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ly0 [/font]("El"). However, the Old Scratch reading is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Yl0 [/font]("Eli") - just like the Byzantine Greek!

Shlama Akhay,

As most of you already know, when the New Testament was first penned, there were no vowel or diacretic markings in Aramaic. They were not invented until many centuries after the NT was first written.

One of those markings sigified plurality, and is called the Seyame marking (for more info, see <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.assyrianlanguage.com">http://www.assyrianlanguage.com</a><!-- w -->, level two, lesson 40 for an in-depth treatment of this topic.)

The Seyame marking consists of two small dots placed above a word which, when supplied, made the noun plural rather than singular. Therefore "brother" in the singular is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0---x0 [/font]and in the plural it is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0---^x0 [/font], but absent these markings as would have been the case in the 1st century AD, the two forms would look exactly the same.

Therefore, unless it was obvious from the context, a scribe would need to make an educated guess as to which reading is proper, whether to translate singular or plural.

In the latter scenario, different scribes would come to different conclusions - obviously. Yukhanan 6:14 is one of those cases, and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Yukhanan first penned his gospel in Aramaic, and everyone translated "as best they could."

The word in question in the Aramaic of this verse is "miracle/sign" - [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0t0[/font]

The following Greek manuscripts were the result of a scribe(s) who guessed it was plural [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0t^0[/font] : p75 B 0191

The following Greek manuscripts were the result of a scribe(s) who guessed it was singular [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0t0 [/font]: S A D K L W

Shlama Akhay,

In the Greek version of Mark 9:49, we read with astonishment:

Quote:"And everything will be salted with fire...."

Quote:mlx V
011 Palestinian,Syr,JBA to salt
012 Syr to scatter
013 BibAr,Syr to use someone's salt
014 Syr to become salty
041 Syr to be salted
051 Syr to treat someone in a familiar way
LS2 390,J 788
R melxA) N

Quote:"And everything will be scattered/pulverized (Neth-mel-ekh) with fire...."

Quote:"And every sacrifice with salt will be salted (Teth-mel-ekh)." (c.f., Leviticus 2:13)

Quote:"Lift up your eyes to the sky, Then look to the earth beneath; For the sky will vanish wxlmn like smoke, And the earth will wear out like a garment And its inhabitants will die in like manner; But My salvation will be forever, And My righteousness will not wane." (Isaiah 51:6)

Quote:"For everything will be destroyed [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Xlmtn [/font]with fire, and every sacrifice will be seasoned [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Xlmtt [/font]with salt."

Shlama Akhay,

As most of you already know, the absence of Syame markings in the earliest Aramaic NT manuscripts caused many variations in the Greek manuscripts when it comes to singular vs. plural nouns.

Another marker by which we can prove the original language is the redundancy of the usage of the Daleth [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]d[/font] Proclitic when compared to Indo-European languages like Greek and English.

In Aramaic grammar, the following phrases are very proper:

• The present which [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]d[/font] he received
  The word that [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]d [/font]she spoke
  

• The present he received
  The word she spoke
  

• "You know the word which [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]d[/font] he sent to the sons" (manuscripts - p74 S* C D E P Psi 945 1241 2495)
  
  "You know the word he sent to the sons" (manuscripts - Sa A B 81 614 1739)
  

Angry-Merciful in Mk 1:41
Shlama Akhi Chris.
Good idea that of yours!
I don???t know if this fits your ???split words??? category (or Akhi Paul specification as ???polysemics???) but here it goes:
In some Greek mss. of this Mk text there???s a curious variance (it was the matter of my Thesis):
Bezae (D 05) and the latins: a 3 d ff2 and r1 original reading, besides Tatian???s Diatessaron, bring orgisqeiv , ANGRY, while the rest of mss bring splagcnisqeiv , MERCIFUL. Textual Criticism Scholars are divided in this, because the first reading is certainly less attested but, according to the rule of ???lectio difficilior potior??? (better the more difficult reading: it???s more likely changed later for a softer ???pious??? exegesis; Mt and Lk both omitted the ???feeling???, any: quite suspicious!), ???angry??? would be the ???original???. I won???t insist here in the subject of Greek reading preference, but notice that the Greek aorist participles are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in appearance. How can then the confusion be explained? In the Peshitta we read [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Mxrt0 [/font]. Hypotetically, the word corresponding to ???Angry??? could be [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font]. The shape of the[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] x [/font] (khet) and the[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 9[/font] (ayn) are very similar, so Zorba???s confusion could have its cause just here (NB: Assuming the Aramaic written in ESTRANGELO, in Hebrew letters the similarity is not so evident.
There???s more: among the meanings of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font] there???s also ???paradoxically??? ???to have pity???. During my researches I was really amazed in finding this in the Ferrer, J / Nogueras, M. A.: Breve Diccionario Siriaco, Barcelona 1999. This is a Syriac-Spanish-Catalanian Dict. In order to be sure, I personally called the co-author, Joan Ferrer, and he told me that that peculiar meaning was attested in the Payne Smith Compendious Dict. where they found it. Therefore, in addition to the textual criticism aspect, there???s also a matter of choice in translation, since, if he (wrongly?) saw [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font], Zorba finally decided to translate it as MERCIFUL.
BTW, MAR EPHREM has an extraordinary comment of this text (where he obviously saw [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font]), delightfully explaining this mixture of angry and mercy in Jesus (I have it in Syriac, transcript from: EPHREM DE NISIBE, Commentaire de l?????vangile Concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709). Expanded and Revised Edition. L. L??loir, ed. Dublin 1990; A Syriac Professor of the Sorbonne Univ., Paris, sent it to me. I used it translated to Spanish and placed the Syriac text in the appendix, along with Greek and Latin texts of various Holy Fathers, at the end of my Thesis). Let???s remember that Mar Ephrem DIDN???T KNOW GREEK in spite of (:-)?) his incredible wisdom (I must confess that he became one of my personal favorite Saints, even if we venerate him as ???Doctor of the Church???).
Regardless the preference for which of the Greek variants, or even BECAUSE OF THEM, isn???t an clear evidence of the Aramaic Priority?
Shlama,
Ab. Valentin

Shlama Akhay,

As Akhan Rob pointed out in his fantastic example of the Janus Parallelism in this verse (see http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34), the Aramaic word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fxrp [/font]can mean either "birds" or "blossoms".......

BUT....

...look at how Old Scratch messes it up! Rather than using the correct word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fxrp [/font]- it (both the Sinaitic and Cureton manuscripts) use the construction [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0pnk tywx [/font]which can ONLY mean "birds!"



Old Scratch is OBVIOUSLY a translation from the Greek, which is OBVIOUSLY a translation from the Peshitta - which is the only version that preserves this Janus Parallelism! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->