+- 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: Mt 1:23 Virgin or Young Woman? (/showthread.php?tid=607)
Mt 1:23 Virgin or Young Woman? - Vsanzcm - 11-15-2003
Mt 1:23/ Is 7:14
Shlama lekoulkhoun!
The ???VIRGIN??? for ???YOUNG WOMAN??? detail in Mt 1:23
NB. This is a linguistic issue, beyond the Theological matter involved in it, out of discussion here.
GNT
Idou j parqenov en gastri exei kai texetai uion
kai kalesousin to onoma autou Emmanoujl
o estin meqermjneuomenon Meq' jmwn o qeov
... THE VIRGIN will conceive (future) and will bear (future)... and THEY (= impersonal) will call his name...
NB. Variant: kaleseiv D, pc, bo-mss, Or, Eus (= LXX).
LXX
Idou j parqenov en gastri exei kai texetai uion
kai kaleseiv to onoma autou Emmanoujl
... THE VIRGIN will conceive (future) and SHE will bear (future)... and YOU will call his name...
NB. ???YOU??? = ???House of Israel??? (Cfr. 7:3), the addressee of the Oracle.
HOT
l' wnmv wmH t'rqw ??b tdlyw hrh hmlvh hnh
...The YOUNG WOMAN has conceived (perf) and SHE will bear (weqatal) ... and SHE will call (weqatal)...
PNT
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ly0wnm9 hm4 Jwrqnw 0rb dl0tw N=bt Flwtb 0hd
Jhl0 Nm9 Mgrttmd [/font]
... THE VIRGIN will conceive and SHE will bear and THEY will (= impersonal) call his name...
All verbs in future (imperf).
POT
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ly0wnm9 hm4 0rqtnw 0rb 0dlyw 0n=b Flwtb 0h [/font]
NB. CAL variants (?):[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] ty=b . 0rq [/font]
... THE VIRGIN conceives (participle = present) and SHE bears (participle = present) and His Name WILL BE CALLED (imperf)...
Targ Jonathan:
l'wnmv hytw rb dyltw 'ydvm 'tmylwv 'h
... The YOUNG WOMAN...
Greek primacists scholars allege that the change or ???specification??? in GNT Mt, of VIRGIN for YOUNG WOMAN (HOT) is due to the influence of LXX from where Mt took it, so this would be a ???prove??? of the Greek original. But notice that ???VIRGIN??? WAS ALREADY IN PESHITTA OLD TESTAMENT (POT)! Therefore, PNT Mt would be quoting POT. This detail makes the Zorbans argument invalid (at least it makes the PNT quote???s relationship with GNT/LXX unnecessary). Notice also the verbs differences in GNT and LXX. The ???genealogy??? of texts should be then:
HOT > POT > PNT > GNT and not: HOT > LXX > GNT > PNT, as Zorbans state.
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fwx0b [/font]
Ab. Valentin