Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gift or Gifts in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17
#1
I have been doing some word studies in the NT Aramaic. One such study was with the word - "Gift" as employed in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17 but also used in Acts 10:45, Acts2 :38, John 4:10 Rom 1:11, 5:15,16, Eph 2:8, 2 Tim 1:6 and Heb 6:4 plus a few other passages according to Dukhrana's lexicon. My focus is for now on Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17. But I noticed a significant change in the way George Lamsa translated in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17. In these two verses Lamsa translated "Gift" into the plural form (as Gifts) the same as in Luke 11:13 (and also a few passages like Matthew 7:11, Romans 12:6, 1 Cor 2:12, 12:28, 30 - again, using Dukhrana). Now using Younan's Peshitta interlinear and even Dukhrana site the word is identical. I mean the singular of John 4:10, Acts 2:33, 38, Acts 10:45, and Acts 11:17 is the same spelling as the plural. Lamsa translated this word in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17 into the plural (Gifts) and Younan/Dukhrana into the singular (Gift).

Who is right and on what basis?? Or is this one word - "Gift" able to be both plural and singular?? But in determining which way to go when finding "Gift" in any particular passage is there some basis to go by??

Is there a slight mispelling in this word that would differentiate between "Gift" and "Gifts."

Please let me get ahead of myself a bit. I take it the "vowel marks" that were added later known as Syame (Diacretic markings) play a big role here. I am not 100%. But would this make a distinction in distinguishing the singular and plural for "Gift" and other words for that matter???

For me this leads to more questions: When were these markings known as Syame added and by whom??? I mean were they added by just a group of folks who thought it would be a good idea just to add these diacretic marks??? And also, most importantly, when these Syame marks (or vowel signs? could you call it that??) were added - were they added to the same physical manuscript copies of the Peshitta?? I could use some help here and I am not sure which way to go. Thanks you so much , folks.

Sincerely seeking,

Mike
Reply
#2
Hello all Peshitta lovers. Aloha is good indeed. There is a reference by Paul ia long ago previous post about dicretic markings called "Syame." He mentioned a site that would cover this in detail: <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.Assyrianlanguage.com">www.Assyrianlanguage.com</a><!-- w -->. Is this site now absolete?? I have attempted to go there 2-3 times but it comes up blank.

Also another reason for this reply. Acts 16 is now added to the Interlinear NT here!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!

Peace and Grace to all who strive to follow our Saviour and His precious Words

Mike
Reply
#3
shlomo Mike,

Mike Kar Wrote:Now using Younan's Peshitta interlinear and even Dukhrana site the word is identical. I mean the singular of John 4:10, Acts 2:33, 38, Acts 10:45, and Acts 11:17 is the same spelling as the plural. Lamsa translated this word in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17 into the plural (Gifts) and Younan/Dukhrana into the singular (Gift).

Who is right and on what basis?? Or is this one word - "Gift" able to be both plural and singular?? But in determining which way to go when finding "Gift" in any particular passage is there some basis to go by??

Is there a slight mispelling in this word that would differentiate between "Gift" and "Gifts."

In this, context wise, it should be in the singular, so "Younan/Dukhrana" are both correct.

Sometimes Lamsa seems to be translating from a text that is not the Peshitta.
(I've noticed an even more intense divergence from Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta OT while translating the book of the prophet esha'yo.)

I wouldn't bother using the Lamsa's translation for comparisons. IMHO!

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#4
This is for Stephen Silver, Paul Younan, and Andrew Roth:

I will attempt to be a bit more on the mark and precise here.

(1) Is the word used for "gift" in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17 both to be rendered in the singular??

(b) For Acts 2:33 the word "this" linked to "gift" points this out, does it not??

(2) AS far as the "markings" placed above Aramaic words after the manuscripts have been written, were these markings, called Syame, added to the same physical manuscript themselves??

(3) These diacretic markings (Syame) in the case of Acts 2:33 and 11:17 would not change the rendering for "gift" as being in the singualr would it?? In other words, before and after the markings the singular of this word "gift" would and does not change?? yes or no? I take it that this word in both verses is to be in the singular from what I have observed. But I want to confirm this with those affluent in Aramaic.

Thanks tons.

Sincerely seeking,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#5
Mike Kar Wrote:This is for Stephen Silver, Paul Younan, and Andrew Roth:

I will attempt to be a bit more on the mark and precise here.

(1) Is the word used for "gift" in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17 both to be rendered in the singular??

(b) For Acts 2:33 the word "this" linked to "gift" points this out, does it not??

(2) AS far as the "markings" placed above Aramaic words after the manuscripts have been written, were these markings, called Syame, added to the same physical manuscript themselves??

(3) These diacretic markings (Syame) in the case of Acts 2:33 and 11:17 would not change the rendering for "gift" as being in the singualr would it?? In other words, before and after the markings the singular of this word "gift" would and does not change?? yes or no? I take it that this word in both verses is to be in the singular from what I have observed. But I want to confirm this with those affluent in Aramaic.



Thanks tons.

Sincerely seeking,

Mike Karoules

Shlama Akhi Mike:
The word maohowtha is either singular or pleural depending upon the context. In Acts 2:33 the Rukha d'kadusha is as it were singular so maohowtha is singular. In Acts 11:17 it is the same, as stated. When in the case of I Corinthians 12:4 there is pleurality then pleural gifts are rightly assumed of maohowtha. The word remains the same but the context determines whether the word is singular or pleural, without changing the precise meaning of the word. Since diacritics were not part of the original text their value is mainly for pronunciation. Please forgive my transliteration as it may not conform to the actual pronunciation.
In conclusion, and to my meagre understanding, the feminine pronoun hada can mean either this or these depending upon the context as in Lexicon word #5249.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#6
Steve, Hey! Thanks for your reply. I am wondering from where you obtained your information?? Did you go straight to the Dukhrana site and go to Acts 2:33 (where it says "go to verses") and then scroll down to the very word where it says "This, These"(right next to 5249 - written in blue.) ??? I just want to be sure.

If so I am wondering if you noticed the grammatical from of the word says that, here, it is in the feminine-singular.

In a nutshell did you know answer my question pretty much right off the cuff or did you do some digging at Dukhrana?? BTW, are you fluent in Aramaic at all or to any depth??

Thank-you Steve,


Graciously,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#7
Mike Kar Wrote:Steve, Hey! Thanks for your reply. I am wondering from where you obtained your information?? Did you go straight to the Dukhrana site and go to Acts 2:33 (where it says "go to verses") and then scroll down to the very word where it says "This, These"(right next to 5249 - written in blue.) ??? I just want to be sure.

If so I am wondering if you noticed the grammatical from of the word says that, here, it is in the feminine-singular.

In a nutshell did you know answer my question pretty much right off the cuff or did you do some digging at Dukhrana?? BTW, are you fluent in Aramaic at all or to any depth??

Thank-you Steve,


Graciously,

Mike Karoules

Shlama Akhi Mike:
Actually I just looked up the word in the Lexicon here on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->. Then I found some other passages where maohowtha is used and that used the feminine pronoun hada, and there it was. There are very few of us here that can do anything "off the cuff" so to speak. My mother tongue is English and I use whatever Lexicons or grammatical tools that I can find. If I don't know the answer, I will direct you to Paul Younan. Paul can parse words "off the cuff" so to speak. I think because you mentioned my name first, Paul and Andrew stood back to let me take a stab at it. It takes time and concentration, but if I can parse an Aramaic word, so can anyone else.
The work I did in transcribing the Khabouris Codex was not translation work. I just put two things together, the Khabouris Codex face to face with John Wesley Etheridge's 1848 translation of the Peshitta text. Lars Lindgren built the Look-Up "user-friendly" interfaces. Lars speaks fluent Aramaic so he's a great partner to work with.
I've always been a little shy of doing any serious translation of the Peshitta beyond personal study.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#8
Steve,

And thanks again. Steve, since you mentioned the lexicon right here at Peshitta.org (I used it last night for the first time as I did not know that Peshitta.org had this. I just happened to look under "tools.") But I want to be sure of something. Are we given permission to use this lexicon?? I read the fine print and "The Way International" published and placed this lexicon on the internet. However, the fine print states that if one were to use this he would have to obtain permission prior to using it. It sort of through me off because usually the fine prints state that the info is copyrighted and can not be copied w/o permission of the people who produce and publish - "whatever." But this lexicon states that we must get perimission to just use it. If this is the case I always give these "honor system" agreements the benefit of the doubt. So, does this site have permission to use the lexicon by "The Way International?"

I will confess I did use it last night because of some things I felt I had to find out for it was very important and pertinent to this subject. But, you know, I just like for things to be on the up and up and out in the open and honest as far as it depends on me/us.

Now, since you have been corresponding with me and since you mentioned the Khoubaris text, I was just wondering if you knew anything about this text??. I have tapped into it just today and am trying to figure out some of the plural and singular words on this manuscript. Would you know if the Syame markings for the plural (2 dots or points above the word to indicate the plural) are faithfully marked on this manuscript??? From what I can tell I think so because I have looked up some verses. But there are some big, bold dots above some of the words as well and am wondering if you know what these indicate. For example, in John 4:10, there appears to be no points above the word in "gift." But there are 2 big bold pooints at the end of this word (reading the word from R to L). What do these mean and what are the significance of these?? Anyway, just thought I would take a shot at this. Thanks for conversing with me.

Graciously,

Mike
Reply
#9
Shlama Akhi Mike,

Mike Kar Wrote:(1) Is the word used for "gift" in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17 both to be rendered in the singular??

Yes, both are singular. We can tell without the need for the Syame markings that denote plurality because:

(1) In Acts 2:33, the word for "this" ("ha-dee") is singular feminine (the word "gift" in Aramaic is grammatically feminine).
(2) In Acts 11:17, the verb immediately prior to "gift" is in a form that contains a singular feminine suffix (the word "gift" in Aramaic is feminine). Since the preceding verb contains a singular suffix form, the following "gift" must be singular.

Most of the time you can discern the number from the surrounding text, without the need for Syame, because verbs and adjectives will reflect the number of the noun in question.

Mike Kar Wrote:(b) For Acts 2:33 the word "this" linked to "gift" points this out, does it not??

Yes. But like English ("this" vs. "these"), in Aramaic the word "this" can be in plural or singular form that are spelled differently. The word in question is spelled in the singular.

Mike Kar Wrote:(2) AS far as the "markings" placed above Aramaic words after the manuscripts have been written, were these markings, called Syame, added to the same physical manuscript themselves??

Yes, in certain manuscripts the markings were added to the text that already existed in an old, un-pointed manuscript. To indicate plurality of a noun, two small dots are placed horizontally over the lowest height character.

Mike Kar Wrote:(3) These diacretic markings (Syame) in the case of Acts 2:33 and 11:17 would not change the rendering for "gift" as being in the singualr would it?? In other words, before and after the markings the singular of this word "gift" would and does not change?? yes or no? I take it that this word in both verses is to be in the singular from what I have observed. But I want to confirm this with those affluent in Aramaic.

If the Syame markings were placed over these words then that would mean the scribe understood the noun to be plural, not singular. But that would be a huge error given that the context of the sentence contains verbs and adjectives that are in the singular.

In other words, instead of "this" being spelled "hade" it would be "haden" for plural. "These gifts". Just like in English, you would not say "this gifts", you would say "these gifts."

Same thing in Aramaic. The word is "this", not "these" - so the word "gift" is singular without the need to consult Syame markings.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#10
Mike Kar Wrote:So, does this site have permission to use the lexicon by "The Way International?"

Yes, they made me put up that disclaimer. I used their raw data for the lexical database, and they want to be sure no one uses it for commercial purposes without their permission. You (and I) are free to use it for our own, personal use as long as we do not profit from it and always make note that it is their intellectual property.

+Shamasha
Reply
#11
Paul. thank you so much. I have been to the Dukhrana site when I first did a word study on this subject for "this" in Acts 2:33 and for "gift" in Acts 2:33, 38; Acts 11:17, Acts 10:45 and John 4:10 just to name a few. Anyone can to the the lexicon there and "word number" and then click to go to the page that has all the inflections of the word. This is what I did. The word for "this" seems not to close at all to "these" according to Dukhrana and just looking at the characters. For the plural of this I only see "Haleyn" and not "Haden" unless that was a typing error you made. I don't think you made a typo so I take it it may have something to do with a difference in dialect. But had Luke intended to say "these" gifts would he not surely emply "Haleyn"(base word for "these", I think) from what I see at Dukhrana?? Thanks.

BTW, do you know what those 2 big bold point at the end of "gift" in John 4:10 represent??

Thanks so much again.

Sincerely,

Mike
Reply
#12
Sorry, it was a typo- meant "halen" not "haden".

Which marks are you referring to? In the Khabouris manuscript?
Reply
#13
Shlama Khulkon:
Actually the database is precisely the same for The Way Int. and Dr.Kiraz's Sedra III that we use on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->. Now, depending whom you ask, both Dr. Kiraz and The Way International lay claim to the intellectual property of the Lexical database. It's just the numbering system 1=AaAaR/air, 2=B'aAAaR/in (the) air....etc., that is in question. No one can hold a copyright for the Aramaic lexicon itself. Lars and I have permission from Dr. Kiraz to use Sedra III as well as his East Adiabene glyphs in a (V1.1) TTF format. I still don't have a clear understanding of who is the actual copyright holder of the Lexical database numbering system. It's a straightforward matter to incorporate the numbering system along with the Aramaic Lexicon in a user friendly interface. Again there is no legality in holding a copyright for dictionary words in any language. I don't even think it's legal to hold a copyright of 1, 2, 3, ...etc. The database is the compilation of an alphabetical list. To anyone intelligent enough to use a dictionary this is common understanding and that's not in and of itself intellectual property. The intellectual property is the Way International's user friendly interface. When you type in a word it spits out the parsing and New Testament verses in their proprietary Concordance. That's what The Way International has a copyright for. The Sedra III at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m --> uses the very same database and Lars Lindgren has created the user friendly interface which does the very same thing that The Way International Lexicon does. However, I think Lars' is better because you can analyze whole verses. He's got this amazing gift for putting things into user friendly code. So, enjoy the free use of the Lexicon and for goodness' sake don't worry about copyright.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#14
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Just to note: When this first became an issue about 5 years ago, I personally spoke with Dr. Kiraz about this immediately after receiving a letter from the attorneys of the Way International. He advised me to receive permission from them, as he had to when he compiled SEDRA. He also used their raw data.

So while yes, we both are using SEDRA - ultimately the license they gave to Dr. Kiraz isn't transferable to 3rd parties, so he is unable to authorize you and I to use the data. That's why I complied with their request for the copyright statement.

Dr. Kiraz simply made a relational database from the raw data. Ultimately all the information as far as etymology, parsing, etc., was compiled by the Way International during the 14 years of research they did when creating their Interlinear and Concordance of the Peshitto. That's why Dr. Kiraz urged me, in very strong terms, to comply with their request.

BTW - other than the initial letter from the attorneys, they themselves have been very gracious, helpful and friendly. I don't mind anyone wanting to protect their intellectual property. Personally, I don't like copyrights (which is why I have the statement on this website) - but I really don't mind if others do.

+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Just to note: When this first became an issue about 5 years ago, I personally spoke with Dr. Kiraz about this immediately after receiving a letter from the attorneys of the Way International. He advised me to receive permission from them, as he had to when he compiled SEDRA. He also used their raw data.

So while yes, we both are using SEDRA - ultimately the license they gave to Dr. Kiraz isn't transferable to 3rd parties, so he is unable to authorize you and I to use the data. That's why I complied with their request for the copyright statement.

Dr. Kiraz simply made a relational database from the raw data. Ultimately all the information as far as etymology, parsing, etc., was compiled by the Way International during the 14 years of research they did when creating their Interlinear and Concordance of the Peshitto. That's why Dr. Kiraz urged me, in very strong terms, to comply with their request.

BTW - other than the initial letter from the attorneys, they themselves have been very gracious, helpful and friendly. I don't mind anyone wanting to protect their intellectual property. Personally, I don't like copyrights (which is why I have the statement on this website) - but I really don't mind if others do.

+Shamasha

Shlama Akhi Paul:
Thanks for the info. I'll look into it.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)