Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In Response to Matti 7:6
shlam lakh akh Paul,

Paul Younan Wrote:Excellent summary, Akhan Abudar.

Now if that's the case, then rather than the traditional "qudsha/qudsho" pronunciation we are accustomed to (as in the adjective of "Holy Spirit"), we would now pronounce it "qudashe/qudoshe" (plural noun q-w-d-Sh-a from the singular q-d-Sh-a, attested to only in the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic dialect, with the additional insertion of the Waw as second radical/consonant as we have seen in other irregular plurals like "village").

Parallelism complete. Peshitta is a product of the Levant, not Edessa. Of Jews, not Assyrians.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we now rest our case.....(not!)


That sounds good, it fits within established patterns. The only thing left to do is to get the Church to change it in their editions <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> <!-- sConfusedneaky: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sneaky1.gif" alt="Confusedneaky:" title="Sneaky" /><!-- sConfusedneaky: -->

I would like to thank you and Andrew for a great discussion and a great learning opportunity!

shlame wiqare,
Paul Younan Wrote:Parallelism complete. Peshitta is a product of the Levant, not Edessa. Of Jews, not Assyrians.

This might be an argument against the tradition that Luqa was from Antioch. How uniform I wonder is the Aramaic of the peshitta across the board?
Marqus for example IIRC gives us initially a different dialect in chapter 15 to that of Matti. Does the rest of Marqus diverge in that way at any point, I wonder
Shlama Akhi Michael,

judge Wrote:How uniform I wonder is the Aramaic of the peshitta across the board?

The Aramaic in the Peshitta, like the Greek of the GNT, varies. I'll give you an example.

In Mattai, for instance, we find examples of a more Hebraic Aramaic. If you read chapter 23 of the Interlinear, you'll find two Aramaicized Hebrew terms that only Mattai uses. "Tekhelet" and "Tefillin" are found in verse 5. No other author in the Aramaic NT used these terms. But we would expect the audience of Aramaic Matthew, who were Jews, to understand these basic terms from their liturgical use.

There are other minor, grammatical differences between writers mostly demonstrating preferences, and not as substantial as the above examples, or Mattai 7:6.

If the Aramaic of the Peshitta were uniform, we would be in big trouble. Uniformity is usually a mark of a translation. Unless, of course, several different people worked independently on each book, or unless there are textual families from different regions of the world like the GNT.

Quote:This might be an argument against the tradition that Luqa was from Antioch.

I'm not sure I understand. How so? Luqa doesn't record this particular saying of Meshikha found in Mattai 7:6.

Quote:Marqus for example IIRC gives us initially a different dialect in chapter 15 to that of Matti.

Not a different dialect at all, the Aramaic words that Mattai (27:46) and Marqus (15:34) recorded as the last words are exactly the same. The only difference is that Marqus includes a gloss explaining "Eil" to mean "Alahi", since that is the more standard way in "Koine Aramaic" to say "My God." Mattai does not bother to include the gloss, since his Gospel was addressed to Jews who understood the word "Eil."

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Michael,

I'm not sure I understand. How so? Luqa doesn't record this particular saying of Meshikha found in Mattai 7:6.

I was thinking, perhaps wrongly, that Anticoh might not be part of the levant, and if so then maybe this particluar book of the peshitta might be also not from the levant.

I had been thinking that the argument we looked at here <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1667</a><!-- l --> which tried to insist on the timing of the change from gnz to gz might be even weaker than it was if Luqa was from Antioch anyway.

Anyway as this was still fresh in my mind I mentioned it here.
Bit complicated but hope you understand. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I have feeling that Acts might not be the only place gaza shows up in the NT anyway though.

yeah, i know i'm resurrecting an old topic, but i was recently in Matthew 7, and i wanted to see if i could find any other references to the whole "earring" / "holy object" aspect. here's what i was able to pick up from a few different sources that seems to only add to the idea that the Greek, at best, only got it partly right, with the sense of "holy," whereas it seems that the Peshitta really does refer to "earring / holy object," -- as the below info seems to suggest is an equal and irrevocably linked connection.

here's what i found:

#1. In the book ISRAEL and HELLAS, Vol 3, by John Pairman Brown, on page 230, the author states that ?the Peshitta by luck points to the intended 'earring.'? - that the Greek idea of ?holy? is a mistranslation. Instead, he says that Messiah was doubling on Proverbs 11:22, which speaks of a ring in the snout of a pig.
2001. Berlin; New York; de Gruyter.

(doesn't seem to get any clearer than that, does it?)

#2. According to LIPINSKI, E.: ?The Syro-Palestinian Iconography of Woman and Goddess?, Israel Exploration Journal 36, n. 1-2, Jerusalem 1986, p. 89. It is necessary to make a distinction between the naked goddesses, in several moments or movements, with a base, or standing over an animal, and the small figures or plaques found during excavations in Israel. These are dated since the Bronze Age up to the Iron Age II, in favissae, tombs, sanctuaries, and private houses, while others are from an unknown origin. Many of these figures, undoubtedly represent a goddess, but others are true ?concubines of the dead? or votive offerings of women that would like to have a baby by means of the ?sympathetic magic?, this interpretation confirmed by comparison to the Egyptian figures in the New Empire (1400-1200) that represent a naked woman laying down, milking a baby. Metal pendants of those that portrait the figure of the goddess QUDHU or QADESH are often used as earrings. This can be confirmed in the use of the Western-Semitic term qudasu/qedasa, in Neoasirian, Neobabilonian and Aramean, in the sense of an earring or a ring of a woman, with a naked feminine figure represented in a golden earring found in the tomb of Mamshit and a golden pendant discovered in ?Avdat. This figure represents in many cases the figure Aphrodite, identified in Hellenistic times with Astarte. However, amongst the Nabateans, Aphrodite is assimilated to the Arabic goddess al-?Uzza?, cfr. PATRICH, J.: ???l-uzza? Earrings?, IEJ 34, 1984, pp. 39-46, p. l6: B-D. The word qds refers to ?amulet? or ?sacred object? in the Egypt of the New Empire. Therefore, it is logical to think that it refers not to the main name given to this goddess, Qadesh, but that it is Anat or Astarte, as suggested in the interprestation of the inscription in the stele of Winchester College, cfr. EDWARDS, I.E.S.: ?A relief of Qudushu-Astarte-Anat in the Winchester College Collection?, JNES 14, 1955, pp. 49-51, pls. III-IV: ANEP, 3rd ed. No. 830.

(he links the earring to the holy object itself - this would make Paul's assertion and Abudar's assertion level out completely, right?)

and another reference to the above quote, but mentioned in a different source:

#3. In the book THE RELIGIONS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL: A SYNTHESIS OF PARALLACTIC APPROACHES, by Ziony Zevit, he mentions 16 steles from Egypt with a goddess known as ?Qudshu,? then in a footnote references the Qudashu ?earring? term from Neo-Assyrian, stating that it is a West Semitic loan word. But then makes the offer that from plaques found in the New Kingdom, it was used to refer to ?amulet? or ?sacred object.?
Published 2001, Continuum, New York, NY. Page 323, footnote 131.

i know that some may have already come to a conclusion on the matter, but i just had to share the above info that further substantiates what has been shared here before. hope it is helpful to someone!

Chayim b'Moshiach,

and once again, i resurrect this old topic! but for good measure! i found this passage while prowling around for something else entirely. stumbled upon it and had to share here:

A Wandering Armenian: Collected Aramaic Essays, by Joseph A. Fitzmeyer.
Page 14 ? 15

from at least 1700 it seems to have been suggested that TO HAGION is a mistranslation of the Aramaic QEDASHA. It would have been understood as QUDSHA, an abstraction, ?what is holy,? instead of QEDASHA, ?ring.? Without going into all the other less plausible suggestions that have been made for alleged mistranslations of the Aramaic in other words of the verse, one can now cite the passage in 11QtgJob 38:8, where the Aramaic word for ?ring? has turned up precisely in the form that makes the suggestion plausible: ?and they gave to him (Job), each one a lamb and a ring of gold.? No matter what one will say about the plausibility of the suggestion in this case, the Aramaic evidence for the parallelism will no longer have to be sought in late Syriac or other texts. Moreover, the parallelism of the ?ring? and the ?pearls? in a proverbial saying not unlike the Aramaic Wisdom-aphorisms of Ahiqar now becomes plausible because of a closely contemporary Palestinian Aramaic text.

nice to see that others (from as far back as the 1700s!!!) were leaning this way, too!

Chayim b'Moshiach,

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)