+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Best Greek primacy argument I found, until now. John 14:9 (/showthread.php?tid=3534)
Best Greek primacy argument I found, until now. John 14:9 - distazo - 10-05-2016
Somebody pointed out to me a real argument which would point to Greek primacy.
Seriously,Now, this one is really one argument. If they would have such as list, it would impress.
So here we go...
Etheridge: John 14:9
Jeshu saith to him, All this time have I been with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip?
Now, in the Aramaic, it says: "ܦ݁ܺܝܠܺܝܦ݁ܶܐ" (Philipé)
This is a Greek nominativus. Primacists say: "Well, if this would have been Aramaic, originally, it would say: ܦܝܠܝܦܘܣ
This also would be the case in Acts 1:1; 10:3; 26:4 and 1 timothy 6:20
RE: Best Greek primacy argument I found, until now. John 14:9 - sestir - 10-05-2016
Nice!
Isn't the Greek case vocative rather than nominative?
This might be relevant: https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/germ-ling1/Abstract_Bar-Asher_Siegal_Vocative.pdf
Quote:In dialects with a morphological distinction between definite and indefinite nouns the vocative tends to be in the definite form. Thus, it appears as something like: “The child, come here!”. This is for example reflected in the Aramaic sentences embedded in the Greek text of the New-Testament.
If so, couldn't ܦܝܠܝܦܐ simply be definite/emphatic in order to indicate address?
RE: Best Greek primacy argument I found, until now. John 14:9 - distazo - 10-05-2016
(10-05-2016, 06:31 PM)sestir Wrote: Nice!
Isn't the Greek case vocative rather than nominative?
This might be relevant: https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/germ-ling1/Abstract_Bar-Asher_Siegal_Vocative.pdf
Quote:In dialects with a morphological distinction between definite and indefinite nouns the vocative tends to be in the definite form. Thus, it appears as something like: “The child, come here!”. This is for example reflected in the Aramaic sentences embedded in the Greek text of the New-Testament.
If so, couldn't ܦܝܠܝܦܐ simply be definite/emphatic in order to indicate address?
I don't think this is Aramaic grammar but a transliteration in Greek form. So, your PDF said, there is no vocative, but there were 'tricks' to add it to the language, for instance, by saying; "malki" or adding ow, malka (Oh, king)".
Maybe, we have a case where probably Yeshu litterally used a Greek 'barbarism' to address Philippos in a nice personal way.
I also found, in Romans 16, for instance, that the Latin follows the Greek way of writing, but the Aramaic has a unique way of writing names, for instance, it has 'Maria', as sole expression in the whole NT. which is the correct way, the Latins would pronounce it, while 'maryam' would be 'funny' latin (If I remember well)