Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Word-play or Janus Parallelism?

I was doing some studying in the book of Luqa chapter 10 last weekend, and I ran across the following information. At first it appeared to me to be a clever play on a word by the Messiah, but then as I read over it a few more times, I began to wonder if perhaps this is actually a Janus Parallelism. So I???m submitting it here to see what the consensus might be.

Thanks for any input!

33 But a man, a Shamraya, while journeying, came where he was, and beheld him, and had compassion on him,
34 and came near to him, and bound up his wounds, and poured on them wine and oil, and placed him on his donkey, and brought him to an inn, and cared for him.

The word that caught my attention is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Brqt0w[/font], which is translated as the above underlined portion. It is from the word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Brq[/font], which also means ???neighbor,??? and it was this dual meaning that caused me to wonder if it would be better approached in light of a Janus Parallelism than just a mere play on the meaning of the word. i think it is definitely at least intended as a play on words due to the subject of the whole identity of the "neighbor," but i couldn't help but wondering if indeed the JP direction was legit or not...

Basically, the way I began to see it was that the word???s meaning of ???nearness??? would be understood immediately from the initial understanding of ???journeying??? and ???coming??? where the fallen man was, and then the idea of a "neighbor" would be invoked only after reading the helping, compassionate deeds performed for the fallen man, connecting to the Hebrew idea of:

Vayeeqra (Leviticus) 19:18
???and you shall show love to your companion that is like you???


D???vareem (Deuteronomy) 22:1-4
1 You shall not see the ox of your brother--or his sheep--straying, and hide yourself from them. You shall most certainly return them to your brother.
2 And if your brother is not near to you, and you do not know him, and you shall gather him to the midst of your house, then it shall be with you until your brother searches for him, and you shall return it to him.
3 And so you shall do for his donkey, and so you shall do for his garment, and so you shall do for all that is lost of your brother, which he lost but you found. You are not allowed to hide yourself.
4 You shall not see the donkey of your brother, or his sheep falling in the way, and hide yourself from them. You shall most certainly raise them up with him.

Also, in Luqa 10:34, there appears to be a relation between the terms ???wine??? and ???donkey,??? but I???m failing to see the reason, if any.

Chayim b???Moshiach,
Shlama Akhi Jeremy,

I am very careful about pronouncing a JP. I would say no in this instance, simply because the QRB root of "near" is carried over naturally to "neighbor", i.e., "one who is near". When you have the root meaning simply carrying over, that is not a JP in my opinion. So, if you had ABD as work and worker/servant, no, not a JP.

A JP, or "mirror phrase" as I prefer to use, is triggered when two DIVERSE meanings from a root are exploited at once. So Matthew 13:31-32 uses ZEMER as both "pruning" and "song", which are very different meanings whose linkage is inexplicable except through Aramaic understanding.

As for "wine" and "donkey" these are two different roots that are spelled the same in terms of consonants but pronounced differently. There is no connection there either. Hope this helps! For more info, see Ruach Qadim, p. 56-58.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama akhi Andrew,

thank you for your input. i was wondering if a JP claim would be valid, since, like you pointed out, the definitions flow into each other, and are not so separated as the one you mentioned. actually, though, with "zemer" you're referring to the one out of Shir haShirim -- Matti 13 has "p???arakhta" being the hinge-point.

the wine/donkey issue was just wondering if there was anything going on "implying" something, since as they appear in the text they do sound somwhat similar. i wasn't being able to derive anything from them, so i wanted to make sure i wasn't missing something.

Todah Rabbah!

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Shlama Akhi Jeremy,

Yes quite correct. I quote both Matt 13:31-32 and the Song of Songs in RQ1 on this point. PARAKHTA is with Matti.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)