Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"POLITARXAS'' could be big blow for Aramaic Primacy in Acts
#16
Steve, I did indeed read your post. you make a very good point. Thank-you for your reply. Let me look at it a little bit closer. But are you saying that "Tanana" and "Kanana" are the same term? <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://WWW.Dukhrana.com">http://WWW.Dukhrana.com</a><!-- w --> defines "Kanana" as Cananite in the Matthew and Mark lists that you gave. I will check that again. BTW, in my opinion my point of Uriah still holds. Now I can not be sure of this but Uriah was married to Bethsheba and according to Jewish Law Bathsheba would be in violation of the law if Uriah (at that time) was not Jewish. I believe we are dealing with possibilites here as well as probabilites. David, being in speaking terms with Hiram and even some of the Gentile kings as you mentioned is one thing. Fighting for the Jewish army on behalf of Jehovah is quite another. Uriah had to be also following the Jewish ordinances for Jews fighting in battle at that time. He, still being a gentile is quite unlikely. How could he be anything but Jewish at this time of the narrative between David & Bathsheba's adultery. Thank-you.

Also on Acts 2:24. The word "loosed" being tied in with "held" , and paired together does make sense. The first part of the verse with "having loosed" flew right by my mind. This would lean pretty good for an Aramaic Primacy proof for Luke-Acts.

Mike Karoules
Reply
#17
Steve,

The Aramaic concordance number (Dukhrana's site again) is 18736. In the NT Peshitta for both Matthew and Mark (used only twice in the NT) it is defined as Canaanite only. Thanks tons. Your point is well taken, but in consideration of this info your basis that these texts make a strong point in favor of Aramaic Primacy is not really that strong. Patience.

Regards
Reply
#18
Quote:But are you saying that "Tanana" and "Kanana" are the same term?

Yes. Qananya is Hebrew and Tanana is Aramaic. Both can be written with the same text type. Qananya is not a transliteration into Aramaic but a Hebrew loan word. The zealots rejected all foreign culture, whether Greek or Persian. Look at the difference between Canaanite in Matthew 15:22.

kananita Canaanite
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fyn9nk[/font]

Now the Hebrew in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:19

q'nanya zealot (Hebrew)
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ynnq[/font]

And the Aramaic in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13

tanana zealot (Aramaic)
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0nn=[/font]


Try to picture the kind of Midrash amongst Jews, that took place around the subject of the zealot movement.

Talmud - Mas. Sotah 49b - Soncino Talmud

BECAME MORE AND MORE DEBASED; AND THERE WAS NONE TO ASK, NONE TO INQUIRE. UPON WHOM IS IT FOR US TO RELY? UPON OUR FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN. IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE MESSIAH1 INSOLENCE WILL INCREASE AND HONOUR DWINDLE;2 THE VINE WILL YIELD ITS FRUIT [ABUNDANTLY] BUT WINE WILL BE DEAR;3 THE GOVERNMENT WILL TURN TO HERESY4 AND THERE WILL BE NONE [TO OFFER THEM] REPROOF; THE MEETING-PLACE [OF SCHOLARS] WILL BE USED FOR IMMORALITY; GALILEE WILL BE DESTROYED, GABLAN5 DESOLATED, AND THE DWELLERS ON THE FRONTIER WILL GO ABOUT [BEGGING] FROM PLACE TO PLACE WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE PITY ON THEM; THE WISDOM OF THE LEARNED6 WILL DEGENERATE, FEARERS OF SIN WILL BE DESPISED, AND THE TRUTH WILL BE LACKING; YOUTHS WILL PUT OLD MEN TO SHAME, THE OLD WILL STAND UP IN THE PRESENCE OF THE YOUNG, A SON WILL REVILE HIS FATHER, A DAUGHTER WILL RISE AGAINST HER MOTHER, A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, AND A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD;7 THE FACE OF THE GENERATION WILL BE LIKE THE FACE OF A DOG,8 A SON WILL NOT FEEL ASHAMED BEFORE HIS FATHER. SO UPON WHOM IS IT FOR US TO RELY? UPON OUR FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN.

GEMARA. Rab said: [The decree against the use of a crown] applies only to one made of salt and brimstone,9 but if made of myrtle or roses it is permitted; and Samuel said: Also one made of myrtle or roses is prohibited, but if made of reeds or rushes it is permitted; and Levi said: Also one made of reeds or rushes is prohibited. Similarly taught Levi in his Mishnah:10 It is also prohibited if made of reeds or rushes.

AND AGAINST [THE USE OF] THE DRUM [IRUS]. What means IRUS? ??? R. Eleazar said: A drum with a single bell.11 Rabbah b. R. Huna made a tambourine for his son; his father came and broke it, saying to him, ???It might be substituted for a drum with a single bell. Go, make for him [an instrument by stretching the skin] over the mouth of a pitcher or over the mouth of a kefiz???.12

DURING THE WAR OF QUIETUS THEY DECREED AGAINST [THE USE OF] CROWNS WORN BY BRIDES etc. What means ???crowns worn by brides???? ??? Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: A [miniature] golden city.13 There is a teaching to the same effect: What are ???crowns worn by brides???? ??? A golden city. But one may make a cap for her out of fine wool. A Tanna taught: They also decreed against [the use of] the canopy of bridegrooms. What means ???canopy of bridegrooms???? ??? Crimson silk embroidered with gold. There is a teaching to the same effect. The canopy of bridegrooms is crimson silk embroidered with gold. But we may make a framework of laths and hang on it anything one desires.

AND THAT NOBODY SHOULD TEACH HIS SON GREEK. Our Rabbis taught: When the kings of the Hasmonean house fought one another,14 Hyrcanus was outside and Aristobulus within. Each day15 they used to let down denarii in a basket, and haul up for them [animals for] the continual offerings. An old man there, who was learned in Greek wisdom,16 spoke with them17 in Greek,18 saying: ???As long as they carry on the Temple-service, they will never surrender to you???. On the morrow they let down denarii in a basket, and hauled up a pig.19 When it reached half way up the wall, it stuck its claws [into the wall] and the land of Israel was shaken over a distance of four hundred parasangs. At that time they declared,- ???Cursed be a man who rears pigs and cursed be a man who teaches his son Greek wisdom!??? Concerning that year we learnt that it happened that the ???omer20 had to be supplied from the gardens of Zarifim and the two loaves from the valley of En-Soker.21 But it is not so!22 For Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian language in the land of Israel? Either use the holy tongue or Greek! And R. Joseph said: Why use the Syrian language in Babylon? Either use the holy tongue or Persian! ??? The Greek language and Greek wisdom are distinct.23 But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, What means that which is written: Mine eye affecteth my soul, because of all the daughters of my city?24 There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom, and of these there remained only I here and the son of my father's brother in Assia!25 ??? It was different with the household of Rabban Gamaliel because they had close associations with the Government;26 for it has been taught: To trim the hair in front27 is of the ways of the Amorites;28 but they permitted Abtilus b. Reuben29 to trim his hair in front because he had close associations with the Government. Similarly they permitted the household of Rabban Gamaliel to study Greek wisdom because they had close associations with the Government.

The noted part of the Mishna, at the beginning the Babylonian Talmud masekhta-Sotah 49b, highlighted in red quotes Micah 7:6. This is what Yeshua quotes in Matthew 10:34-36. I say this to show that this rabbinical argument was contemporary to Yeshua and that Shimon HaQ'nana was not an isolated zealot but a member of a popular movement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's my understanding that Shimon HaQanana was a proponent of this extreme theology and hence his name. It's quite possible that Shimon refused to speak anything but Hebrew, even with Yeshua. I'm conjecturing but I wouldn't be surprised if Yeshua spoke Hebrew to Shimon HaQanana in return.

Quote:http://www.dukhrana.com defines "Kanana" as Cananite in the Matthew and Mark lists that you gave.


Actually the lexical list was compiled by Dr. George Kiraz. As you are already aware, I disagree with his translation of kananya to mean Canaanite. The word in Matthew 15:22 is correctly translated as Canaanite, but it's a different spelling. In Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:19 kananya begins with a Koph, usually symbolised by a Q, while kananyata in Matthew 15:22 begins with a Khaf, symbolised by a K. The difference in spelling is not incidental. They are really two different words. In Matthew 15:22 the Aramaic is a transliteration of Canaanite while in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:19 the word qananya is the Hebrew word Qana, which means zeal.

Quote:Also on Acts 2:24. The word "loosed" being tied in with "held" , and paired together does make sense. The first part of the verse with "having loosed" flew right by my mind. This would lean pretty good for an Aramaic Primacy proof for Luke-Acts.

Hi Mike:
The Uriah/Bathsheba thing is not relevant to the discussion on Simon the Canaanite. Also, I apologise if I introduced this side issue in light of your discussion with Paul Younan on Acts 2:24. I do agree with Paul Younan that the word khabila is contextually cords.

Kindly,
Stephen
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)