Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mattai 7:6
#1
Shlama Akhay,

In the Greek versions of Matthew 7:6, we read with astonishment:

Quote:Give not a holy thing to dogs: and cast not your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

There are two mistranslations in this one verse! The more important one involves the Aramaic word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]04dwq[/font] - here are the relevant Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon entries:

Quote:qwd$#2 N qd$)
1 JLAGal,JLATg,Sam,Syr ear-,nose-ring
LS2 649
LS2 v: qdA$A)

Quote:qwd$#3 N qwd$)
1 Syr consecration
2 Syr eucharist
3 Syr voice crying 'holy'
LS2 649
LS2 v: quwdA$A)

Quote:qwd$ N
1 passim holiness
2 Syr holy place
3 JLATg pl. consecrated objects
4 JLATg various sacrifices
LS2 649
LS2 v: quwd$A)

As you can see, the exact same spelling is interpreted as either "ear-, nose-ring" or "consecrated (holy) thing".

The second word that is mistranslated is the Aramaic root [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0lt[/font] - it should be translated as "hang", rather than "give" (see word# 22596 in the Lexicon.)

Therefore, the verse should read:

Quote:Hang not earrings on dogs: and cast not your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

As you can see, there is a beautiful parallelism here only apparent in the Aramaic (rings/pearls - dogs/swine). The Greek totally misses it! <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

As Akhan Rob & Dean Dana pointed out, there are several instances in the Aramaic Targums where this root (QDSH) is used to mean "ear-,nose-ring.) Here is Dean's reply:

Quote:Shlama Akhay,

So far I've seen 6 references in the Targum to the Torah (Onkelos) containing the root QD$ for earring/nose-ring/ring. They are:

Gen 24:22
Gen 24:30
Gen 24:47
Gen 35:4
Exo 32:2
Exo 32:3

The significance of this holy vs earrings debate is unfolding before our very eyes. I think what we've seen so far contributes 4 very important elements for Aramaic primacy:

#1: The mistranslation to Holy establishes that the Peshitta has preserved Meshikha's original teaching thereby rendering every other version as incorrect beginning with the Greek.

#2: The correct reading reveals Yeshua's use of a parallelism absent in every other version.

#3: The finding of the QD$/earring root in Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (the Targum) establishes the fact that Peshitta Matthew is *not* the work of post Nicene Syriac translators (since even Assyrians are not familiar with the QD$/earring root. Rather it is the work of Mathew himself, a Palestinian Jewish writer.

#4: The use of the QD$/earring root in Mathews Gospel proves that Mathew wrote in Aramaic and *not* in Hebrew since both extant Hebrew Matthews follow the mistake of Greek Matthew even to the extent of adding "flesh" and "thing" (Shem Tov & Dutillet, respectfully) to force the verse to make sense.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
This doesnt fit the context.

"Cast not thy pearls" means don't speak your wisdom before fools, it's an idiom. The first part of this doesn't fit the context here of the second.

A better translation would be: "Do not dangle the holy before the dogs" or in a better Semetic Elizabethan would be: "Dangle not the holy before dogs, and cast not thy pearls before swine"

This fits the context of the second and flows in the sentence structure, which leads into the rending and tearing part. But above all, it showcases the wisdom our Lord had in His sayings.

Ref was Jan wilsons Old Syriac and Lamsa's Idioms of the bible Explained
Reply
#3
forgot to log in, but ya, it was me.
Reply
#4
Actually, an even better joining of the structure would be:

Dangle not the holy before dogs, nor cast thy pearls before swine

brings out the majestic quality better.
Reply
#5
Dave,

I didn't need a reminder - I knew it was you.

Your opinion has been noted and I thank you for sharing it.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
Paul Younan Wrote:Dave,

I didn't need a reminder - I knew it was you.

Your opinion has been noted and I thank you for sharing it.

Akhan Shamasha Paul,

I was reading this verse the otherday, and straight away (as an amatuer Aramaic reader) I said to my self, "do not give that which is holy to dogs" and then I remembered what you had said about this verse. Now I was reading it in Estrangelo font with no masora at all, just from your word doc downloads (thank you for hosting these by the way) and at first I thought that perhaps it was a spelling issue, I thought I had read Qdsha, when I looked again there was a Waw, Qoodsha, and but I noticed today in Mat 12:32 it says Rukha d'Qoodsha, the exact same spelling at Mat 7:6.

If you were writing to a friend today in Peshitta Aramaic, would you use Masora to show that you were saying earing(s) instead of Holy, lets say in the context it could be either one.

Sami
Reply
#7
There is a similar saying today that I have heard, "Dont put lipstick on a gorilla". (One can google this). This seems to capture (in some ways) the sentiment of "dont put earings on dogs". <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#8
Shlama Alakh Khabiba Sami,

I'd like to explain it in a different way.

Think of the Aramaic word "Qudsha" in its function as an adjective in English. Specifically, an attributive adjective. In English, an attributive adjective normally precedes the noun it modifies. For example:

"a small house"

In Aramaic, it's the reverse. The attributive adjective follows the noun that it modifies. For example:

"beytha zawra" (a house small)

Examine Mattai 4:5:

"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city (medinath Qudsha), and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple"

1 Cor. 9:13

"Don't you know that those who work in the temple (beth Qudsha) get their food from the temple (beth Qudsha)" (see also, Hebrews 8:2, 9:1-3)

Of course the most common phrase we find in the NT is "Holy Spirit" - "Rukha d'Qudsha", again with the attributive adjective following the noun which it modifies.

The reason, Akhi, that the word in question cannot mean "(that which is) Holy" in Mattai 7:6 is because it is not preceded (or, followed) by a noun. It is not an adjective at all, it is itself a noun which is preceded by the verb "hang."

Masoretically speaking, the word in Mattai 7:6 is not "Qud-sha" as in the examples above, it is "Qud-a-sha", a noun in Jewish Galilean Aramaic which means a sort of ear or nose ring. Remember we had no vowel points back then - the consonants are the exact same, which led to the confusion on the Greek translators part.

It's only in the original Aramaic, that the parallelism (dog-pig, ring-pearl) is preserved.

This is not apparent to Assyrians, as it is not part of our dialect. In fact all the Assyrians here will think that's crazy. Had I not referenced the C.A.L., I would have not known this either. We never use that word for a ring, we say "aziqtha" (ref. James/Yaqub 2:2).

Mattai 7:6 was Yeshua speaking to the Hebrews in their "dialect".
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Ahaa, I understood.

Let me recap, if this says Holy, then the noun is missing, that is, Holy what?
Its confusing because in the english you always see the verse say, that which is Holy.And you assume somehow thats how the Greek or in this case Aramaic wording works.

No one would accept "give not Holy to dogs" and it seems to me that if you take the word as being Qudsha, then thats exactly what you have, even in the Aramaic.

So you would need the sentence to go something like give not "ay Mdem (anything) Holy to Dogs"

Thank you for helping me understand Paul, its so useful being able to ask questions, Ive seen this in Lancasters book, Roth's and now here, but until I asked It still didnt quite click.

Shlama Aman.

Sami
Reply
#10
La` T'eT'LuWN QuWD:Sho` L:KaL:K'e`

10878 8873 18208 10183 Not ye-to-give the-holiness to-the-dogs

10878 22596?? ????? 10183 Not ye-to-hang an-earring to-the-dogs

The 22596 example is certainly an intriguing one. And "earring" would be a natural resultant of "to-hang", if it is "to-hang". No doubt, the "hang an earring" phrase is more contextually relevant to the rest of the verse with its use of "pearls".

Lexicons. Sometimes a bad stone is set in them, and then a lot of other bad stones piled upon that one. More conclusive evidence would be if "earring/nose-ring" was indeed used elsewhere, with the QDSh root as its source. So in the 6 examples given by Paul, the Hebrew has its own root for "ring", typically (NeZeM) I think, but the Aramaic does indeed render the Hebrew word for "ring" in the form of ???????????????? (QBig GrinoSho`).

Interesting though, that the 1905 would contain then not only a pointing of question, but also the addition of a matres lecionis, the "W" in (QuWD:Sho`). Never-the-less, a pretty solid argument in my opinion, by Paul, for something like "hang an earring" instead of "give the holiness".
Reply
#11
Same in vowel pointing in Mingana, Khobouris and 1905

Should there be a Zqapa above the Dal for it to be vowel pointed as earing?

Blessings

Sami


Attached Files
.jpg   Mat 7 v6 in Mingana Peshitta.jpg (Size: 21.82 KB / Downloads: 2,255)
.jpg   Mat 7 v6 Khobouris.jpg (Size: 1.51 KB / Downloads: 2,255)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)