01-14-2013, 06:00 AM
Shlama,
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,
Jeremy
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,
Jeremy