Peshitta Forum
In Response to Matti 7:6 - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: In Response to Matti 7:6 (/showthread.php?tid=1770)

Pages: 1 2


In Response to Matti 7:6 - abudar2000 - 09-15-2008

shlom lokh oH Andrew,

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Mat 7:6 nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos

I highlight the first four words because, to my mind, it seems to be conventional from the Greek. I am not aware of "sanctum" meaning anything other than "holy" and don't think (again I could be wrong) that it can be confused for earrings as two Aramaic words are. It seems pretty clear:

nolite = don't give
dare = that which is
sanctum = holy
canibus = to dogs

The other examples may hold water but this one was really close to my heart. Perhaps I have misunderstood and the "earrings on dogs" is in a particular mss like in the Old Latin family? Please advise.

This difference is dependent on the fact that the Peshitta says "earrings on dogs", but I propose an alternate translation of the Peshitta:
lo thetloon qudhsho lkhalbe. => Do not give the Holy to dogs.
wlo tharmoon margonyothkhoon qdhom Hzire. dalmo ndhushoon enen breghlayhoon: wnehpkhoon nvaz'unokhoon.=> and do not drop your "Holy relics" in front of swine. Lest they should trample them with their feet: and turn to wound you.

The reason that I'm against using "qudhsho" for earring is because earring is spelled as "qodhsho" where it doesn't have a "waw" in it. And with this translation both "Holy" and "Holy relics" make sense in this context.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 09-16-2008

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

Perhaps I was not clear. When this thread started, the claim was made that the Vulgate agreed WITH THE PESHITTA on Matti 7:6 which is to say that I know the Peshitta reads "earrings on dogs" and I have translated it as such for many years.

My comment was that the Vulgate Latin, when I checked it, did NOT have the Peshitta reading, but I want a Latin expert to confirm that.

If the Vulgate matched Peshitta with "earrings on dogs" I would view that as extremely significant evidence but the Latin seems to say "holy things to dogs", matching the Greek.

On the other hand, Old Latin mss k (Codex Bobensies) agreeing with Peshitta Mark 9:49 is every bit as significant to me as a Matti 7:6 agreement between the two sources would have been. Clearly the matter is ine requiring greater attention for that reason.

Hope this helps! I can translate the Aramaic just fine! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Paul Younan - 09-16-2008

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

The Waw is included in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, see the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon here:

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/jpaoff.cgi?off=2166934

In addition, the previous verb "tla" means to "hang".

I believe this completes the parallelism:

"hang" -> "cast"
"earring" -> "pearls"

Two verbs, and two items of jewelry. A perfect Parallelism, which Meshikha loved to use as a teaching tool.

b'Shayna,
+Shamasha

PS - this is directly from the Akkadian, "Quddashu" (earrings)


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Paul Younan - 09-16-2008

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

Additionally, sometimes plural forms include a Waw whereas in the singular the Waw is absent.

For instance, consider the word "village" - "QRYTA" becomes the plural "QWRYA"

See Lexicon word number 19081, and the Concordance entries:

Matti ??? 14:35, 19:29
Marqus ??? 10:29
Luqa ??? 5:17
Yukhanan ??? 11:55
Acts ??? 4:34, 26:20, 28:7

b'Shayna,

+Shamasha


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - abudar2000 - 09-16-2008

shlom lokh oH Andrew wlokh mshamshono Paul,

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama Akhi Abudar,

Perhaps I was not clear. When this thread started, the claim was made that the Vulgate agreed WITH THE PESHITTA on Matti 7:6 which is to say that I know the Peshitta reads "earrings on dogs" and I have translated it as such for many years.

Hope this helps! I can translate the Aramaic just fine! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

I know you can translate <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> , I'm actually planning to get your book when it comes out. All I was proposing is that this verse can also be translated in a different way (i.e. I'm not saying that my interpretation of it is better than yours.) As matter of fact you and Paul are one of the main reasons that I keep reading this forum.

In this case what had struck me was that "margonyoto" can also mean "Holy relics", and that would link it to "qudhsho".
Also the word "qudhsho" was being translated as a plural (i.e. earrings). I reviewed it against the Khabouris Peshitta and the oldest copy of the Peshitto (on the Maronite side) that I have, and in both cases they have it marked as a singular.

Paul Younan Wrote:The Waw is included in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, see the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon here:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/jpaoff.cgi?off=2166934">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/jpaoff.cgi?off=2166934</a><!-- m -->

I didn't know that in JPA the word for earring was "QWDSH" (qudsh), this makes more sense now (spelling wise minus the olaf for the emphatic state which I assume they missed in the definition.) In the JPA definition they have the plural as "QWDSHYN" (qudhsheen) / "QDSHYA" (qadshayo), are you proposing that this plural can also be written as "QWDSHA" (qudhsho), as both you (in your interlinear) and Andrew (in his post) translated it to be a plural?

Paul Younan Wrote:In addition, the previous verb "tla" means to "hang".

The "ttl" can also be interpreted as an addition to the verb "yhb", as "yhb" lacks this form in the imperfect.

Paul Younan Wrote:Additionally, sometimes plural forms include a Waw whereas in the singular the Waw is absent.
For instance, consider the word "village" - "QRYTA" becomes the plural "QWRYA"

I completely agree. And the "waw" in "haleluya" serves as the plural for the verb "halel".

But here given that the Peshitta/Peshitto both have ("qudhsho") marked as a singular, could both our ancestors have marked the same word incorrectly?


If "earring" or "earrings" is correct, then we have a case for mistranslation, and if "Holy" is correct then the Peshitta reads like everyone else.
(also some of the old (100 years back) translations that I have from the Syriac to the Arabic read the same way that I translated it.)

When I re-read the previous verses (using earring and pearls), this might be an attempt by yeshu' at humour while teaching them serious lessons (i.e. referring to their jewellery, something materialistic that they value.) <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

tawdi,
keefa-morun


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 09-16-2008

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

Here are a couple of considerations:

1) If we are talking about a PAIR of earrings, then I think a singular form of QUDESHA (i.e. lacking a syame and other grammatical indicators) is fine. However I think Akhan Paul makes the stronger point about the WAW inclusion on the plural technically. Either way I see no trouble with the reading as Paul and I have it. As you also allude to, a strict singular "earring" could also be intended and could still be just as valuable a reading for our cause. In fact, EARRING could refer to an awl used to mark a person as an indentured servant who loves his master, even as the apostles called themselves servants, (cf. Deuteronomy 15:16-17 and James 1:1).

2) I think it is very clear that the verb in question is TITHLON (hang) and NOT TALON (give). What we have here is one of the best cases for a Greek redactor skipping over an Aramaic letter that exists. They literally did not register the "extra" taw, and I would rather that be the mechanism than assuming the Peshitta mss all have scribal errors.

3) Once we understand the verb as HANG, the meaning for QUDESHA I think becomes very clear. We are not "hanging holiness on dogs"--that makes no sense. But it makes perfect sense that, like the pigs, some kind of jewelry is involved. The point is that people without discernment should not be given precious items they cannot appreciate. (This seems to be echoed in today's politics, only with lipstick still keeping pigs unkosher...).

4) We can further look symbolically at these usages and establish that dogs and pigs represent Jews who went away from Torah and Gentiles respectively. This is not only one of the symbols of the Prodigal Son parable it is mentioned directly by Mar Keefa in the famous, "dog returns to his vomit, a pig after washing returns to the mire". The Tanakh connection to that line, and its imagery, to my mind could not be stronger.

That's my two cents. I think we need to look not just at the pshat of the words but, once that is established, also explore the cultural cross-currents that the text was produced in. If we don't then aspects of the Peshitta--loan words come to mind as a good example--will create confusion for the translator and his or her readership.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - abudar2000 - 09-16-2008

shlom lokh oH Andrew,

I agree on most of what you've said and especially on understanding the symbolisms, idioms, and culture of that time.

In regards to (2) "give" in this case is "TTLWN" and not "TLWN". The second person singular is "tetel" imperfect, and the second person plural is "tetloon" imperfect.
This looks very similar to "hang" which is different by a vowel in the second person singular of the imperfect.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Paul Younan - 09-16-2008

Shlama Akhi,

Abudar2000 Wrote:But here given that the Peshitta/Peshitto both have ("qudhsho") marked as a singular, could both our ancestors have marked the same word incorrectly?

Yes, I believe so. Since the vowel/number markings didn't come until centuries later, when it was originally written it could have been singular or plural.

Another thing to consider, Akh, is this:

It is a very odd way in Aramaic to just insert an adjective immediately after a verb. It's not grammatically correct in Aramaic. The verb "tla" immediately preceding "qwdsha" suggests that the latter is not an adjective at all, but rather a noun.

Whether that noun is "ring" or "consecrated object", it works grammatically. However "ring" completes the parallelism with "pearl", whereas "consecrated object" doesn't.

+Shamasha


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 09-16-2008

Shlama Akhay,

Grammatically speaking I think it is clear that we have second person plural imperfect verbs throughout the passage with respect to whom Y'shua is addressing. This is the case with the words for "hang", for "place" and for "break through/wound". So yes, looking just at that, either verb could work.

However, I think Akhan Paul has just hit the most important point. The verb just prior to "qudesha" makes most sense with "qudesha" as a NOUN, and not an adjective. This would then represent a majority "normal" use, but Abudar's points would also go a long way towards explaining how the mistranslation into Greek happened with Zorba not being aware of these nuances.

Now, once "qudesha" is established as NOUN (if in fact it is, which I think so) then it is a pretty straight shot in my view to the conclusion that "earring/earrings" is the better reading than "holy object". I should also point out that according to Tanakh, earrings CAN ALSO BE HOLY OBJECTS, making the reasons for misunderstanding the word even clearer:

20 Then the whole Israelite community withdrew from Moses' presence, 21 and everyone who was willing and whose heart moved him came and brought an offering to YHWH for the work on the Tent of Meeting, for all its service, and for the sacred garments. 22 All who were willing, men and women alike, came and brought gold jewelry of all kinds: brooches, earrings, rings and ornaments. They all presented their gold as a wave offering to YHWH.
Exodus 35:20-22

Jewelry into "holy things"--hmmmmmm.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Paul Younan - 09-16-2008

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Jewelry into "holy things"--hmmmmmm.

If you ask my wife they are pretty much the same thing. <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - abudar2000 - 09-16-2008

shlomo lkhoon aHay,

This has been a great thread and I'm enjoying it considerably.

I think from this discussion we have come out with some great proofs in support of the Peshitta:

-The use of "qudhsho" to mean "earrings", which is from the JPA. This shows that the Peshitta was written in the Jewish milieu of the 1st century adding further support.
-From two words we got parallelism in their primary use and secondary use, as well as the primary and secondary meaning being linked together in Jewish symbolism as shown by aHoon Andrew.
-Although "qudhsho" is usually an adjective in its primary use, it can also be used as a noun in its secondary use <= In Relation to Holy.
-I have to commend aHoon Paul for having found the true meaning for "qudhsho" in this context, by going to the other dialects of that time period.
-Here's what I mean by parallelism

In Aramaic | Primary Meaning | Secondary Meaning |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
qudhsho | Earrings (from JPA) | Holy Object |
margonyotho | Pearls | Holy relics |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Also as aHoon Andrew has suggested this shows how the Greek/Latin made the mistake. They picked the secondary meaning on "qudhsho" and the primary meaning on "margonyotho"
-Also in relation to how this thread started, this shows that the Latin rendering of this verse could still have come from the Peshitta.

pushw bashlomo,
keefa-morun


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Paul Younan - 09-17-2008

Excellent summary, Akhan Abudar.

Now if that's the case, then rather than the traditional "qudsha/qudsho" pronunciation we are accustomed to (as in the adjective of "Holy Spirit"), we would now pronounce it "qudashe/qudoshe" (plural noun q-w-d-Sh-a from the singular q-d-Sh-a, attested to only in the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic dialect, with the additional insertion of the Waw as second radical/consonant as we have seen in other irregular plurals like "village").

Parallelism complete. Peshitta is a product of the Levant, not Edessa. Of Jews, not Assyrians.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we now rest our case.....(not!)

+Shamasha


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Amatsyah - 09-17-2008

Quote:This has been a great thread and I'm enjoying it considerably.

I think from this discussion we have come out with some great proofs in support of the Peshitta:

Quote:-Also in relation to how this thread started, this shows that the Latin rendering of this verse could still have come from the Peshitta.

I love you guys! You're all so smart. This is why I hang around this place!

-Ryan


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 09-17-2008

Shlama Akhi Ryan,

Well you know it is a total privilege for me to be able to respectfully and comprehensively talk about issues with Aramaicists like Paul and Abudar. We help one another and I love learning from them both. I wish all such discussions were so gentle yet so fruitful for these exchanges don't just inform--they act as a healing balm on my spirit that the love for this text is so central and paramount to all of us. I tell you the truth: These men have forgotten more Aramaic than many of the so called "experts" I have met claim to know. This understanding simply cannot be faked.

But I wanted to also say that your exchanges in the past few weeks have just been consistently terrific. I have marvelled at your passion, patience and a total zeal that I have not seen in quite some time. Keep going Ryan as you have been and you will do still greater things to come. Both you and Christina have just been our lifeblood of late with passion and insight and of course I can't forget beloved brother Albion and his peerless devotion. I love you all.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: In Response to Matti 7:6 - Christina - 09-17-2008

Shlama akhan Andrew,

Well simply put the word of Alaha is the love of my life and discovering the Peshitta & Aramaic language has injected new "passion" into the ongoing "love affair" <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> .

I'm sure akhay Ryan & Albion would agree wholeheartedly <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> .