Cornelius in Acts 10

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhan bar-Sinko,

Is that really an Aramaic pronunciation of his name?

Yes, Qurnelia is the Emphatic Aramaic of the Latin name Cornelius. As Cornelie is the Vocative Greek of the Latin name Cornelius.

To me, it looks like the angel is speaking to Cornelius in GREEK, with proper Greek inflection.

Greek or Latin or Aramaic, the grammar is proper in all three languages. I would tend to think it was in Latin, since he was an Italian soldier.

That is, in vocative case, as the Greek NT shows.

Well, the Greek and Latin versions show the vocative case (grammar is the same in that regards with both Latin and Greek.) In the Peshitta, it shows the Emphatic case. There is no vocative in Aramaic, the closest usage is the Emphatic when the person is being addressed directly by the speaker.

Note that the Peshitta text elsewhere writes Cornelius with a Simkath on the end, which reflects the proper nominative case for his name.

The base form for the borrowing of names from Greek and Latin since the days of Alexander were the genitive form (with the Sigma appended.)

Someone could use this to argue that the Peshitta text of this passage is derived from the Greek because it copied the spelling of his name as it was found in different sentences, but I don't think this is necessarily true.

Did it? If that were the case the Peshitta would read "Qurneelee" (with a Yodh on the end), not "Qurnelia" (with an Aleph on the end.) In fact we find the reading "Qurnelia" (with an Aleph on the end) signifying the Emphatic case, as we find "Tawpeela" (Theophilus) in Acts 1:1 (note also that the Greek in Acts 1:1 reflects the proper Greek form, "Theophilie", since the name is in the Vocative case...he is being addressed directly.)

Except for the angelic quotations, Cornelius' name is always spelled the same, with a Simkath reflecting nominative case.

Not having anything to do with the angelic quotations, however. It's a matter of grammar in each case, being that a direct address to him in the Peshitta results in the Simkath being dropped (cf. Acts 10:31, or Acts 10:1 in the case of Theophilus)

Let me give you another example that is exactly a correlation to his example:

The conversion of Saul, in Acts 9:1-9

Look at the Greek for these verses. In verse one, we find his Hebrew name in the usual Nominative case ("Saulos"), but when the angel addresses him in verse 4 - what do you see? The Sigma is dropped, is it not?

More importantly, and this is key, the account is repeated by Paul himself in Acts 22. Take note that the same feature is there in the Greek grammar.....despite the fact that it explicitly states that Paul was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect (Acts 22:2).

I think names are generally borrowed from Greek into other languages in nominative case, which is why we get extra S's on the end, as in the name Jesus, for example.

Yes.

I think the Peshitta would have spelled Cornelius' name this way even if he were the object of the sentence. However, there is no example of this because in this short passage, when he is referred to by name, he is always the subject of the sentence and thus coincidentally matches nominative case with the Greek text.

Then why does the spelling of those two verses reflect vocative case? I would say the Peshitta is accurately recording how Cornelius was addressed.

I think so, too.

Look at the Greek account of how Zechariah was addressed by the angel in Luke 1:13, and compare with the previous verse. As expected, the Greek NT follows Greek rules. But like Saul's encounter with the angel, this conversation was also most likely in Aramaic.

For that matter, check on Matthew 1:19-20. Never does "Joseph" have the S ending, even in the Greek (unlike Zecharias above). So the name itself is the same when in a Nominative and a Vocative case (v. 19, and 20).

Bad Greek grammar, or just irregularity when borrowing Semitic names?