09-13-2008, 07:03 PM
Shlama Akhi Judge,
It seems they are stuck on non-issues. Again, the crux of the argument wasn't whether the Greek "gaza" was derived from the Iranian "ganj" or the Aramaic "ganaza" or the Hebrew "geniza", these words all have a common origin in the Akkadian "ganzu" and the Sanskrit "ganjha." (no, not the same word as you-know-what!)
And no one is disputing that the word "gazophulakion" was used elsewhere in secular writing for "treasury" - again, if our argument was that it was a completely foreign word we would have presented the case differently. There is no gloss in the Greek of Acts 8:27 to explain the word "gaza", or ""gazophulakion" for that matter, so we can assume without the need to consult outside sources that the words were understood by Greek readers and therefore had established themselves as loan-words in Greek a considerable time before Acts was written.
It really doesn't matter if the Greek word "gaza" came from the Akkadian "Ganzu", Persian "Ganj", Hebrew "Geniza", Aramaic "Ganza" or Sanskrit "Ganja" - it really doesn't matter and there's no way to be sure. But the sure thing is it wasn't originally a Greek word - it's of foreign origin.
All of these are distracting from the main point of the argument:
The confusion of the gender due to the unpointed text of the original Aramaic.
Now, Dr. Gibson seems to be once again asking:
It's a singular genitive. 3rd person (sometimes 1st or 2nd in Attic). It can be either masculine, or neutral. Never feminine. The answer is that the gender in the Bezan text is masculine, not neutral and certainly not feminine. Here is the Greek from the Bezan manuscript:
??????? ???????????????? ?????????????????.
??????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????????
???????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????? ?????????????????,
????? ????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????????
Dr. Gibson is playing games with the fact that ???????????? can be masculine or neutral. It's obvious that the placement of ???????????? leaves no doubt that the translation is "treasure of him" (literally, "its treasure", but the reference is definitely to the "eunuch" (another mistranslation), and not Candace.)
![[Image: owtos.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/owtos.jpg)
Here are some links:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morp...or=pro%5Cs
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CF%...E%BF%CF%8D
+Shamasha
It seems they are stuck on non-issues. Again, the crux of the argument wasn't whether the Greek "gaza" was derived from the Iranian "ganj" or the Aramaic "ganaza" or the Hebrew "geniza", these words all have a common origin in the Akkadian "ganzu" and the Sanskrit "ganjha." (no, not the same word as you-know-what!)
And no one is disputing that the word "gazophulakion" was used elsewhere in secular writing for "treasury" - again, if our argument was that it was a completely foreign word we would have presented the case differently. There is no gloss in the Greek of Acts 8:27 to explain the word "gaza", or ""gazophulakion" for that matter, so we can assume without the need to consult outside sources that the words were understood by Greek readers and therefore had established themselves as loan-words in Greek a considerable time before Acts was written.
It really doesn't matter if the Greek word "gaza" came from the Akkadian "Ganzu", Persian "Ganj", Hebrew "Geniza", Aramaic "Ganza" or Sanskrit "Ganja" - it really doesn't matter and there's no way to be sure. But the sure thing is it wasn't originally a Greek word - it's of foreign origin.
All of these are distracting from the main point of the argument:
The confusion of the gender due to the unpointed text of the original Aramaic.
Now, Dr. Gibson seems to be once again asking:
Quote:So once again, I ask you what is the gender of this ?????????????
It's a singular genitive. 3rd person (sometimes 1st or 2nd in Attic). It can be either masculine, or neutral. Never feminine. The answer is that the gender in the Bezan text is masculine, not neutral and certainly not feminine. Here is the Greek from the Bezan manuscript:
??????? ???????????????? ?????????????????.
??????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????????
???????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????? ?????????????????,
????? ????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????????
Dr. Gibson is playing games with the fact that ???????????? can be masculine or neutral. It's obvious that the placement of ???????????? leaves no doubt that the translation is "treasure of him" (literally, "its treasure", but the reference is definitely to the "eunuch" (another mistranslation), and not Candace.)
Here are some links:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morp...or=pro%5Cs
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CF%...E%BF%CF%8D
+Shamasha