Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Word play in aramaic and syriac
#1
Shlama?

First I?ll introduce myself, because I?m a new member.
I come from Switzerland, my mother tongue?s French (and English too, but? not so easily ^^).
I read the Aramaic, the syriac, the Greek (but not better than English lol)?
Aramaic primacist although between the Peshitta and Bezae D05 I?m not sure that the Peshitta is the oldest version?

I want to share a good question with you about the wordplays in Aramaic? A good example is in Luke 3:8. [?] do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. There?s a possibility (and more than a possibility) that John said : mn ?lyn ?bny? mshkH ?lh? lmqwm bny? l?brhm. We see the wordplay benaya (children) and avnaya (stones)? that we don?t find in peshitta, The peshitta reads ?men haleyn kepha meshkaH alaha lamqamo bnaya lavraham.?. We find there kepha?

The question is: why the peshitta has not this wordplay?. I?ve maybe a begin of answer: John who speaks is a Judean ant not a Galilean (Mariam came in the Judas? mountains when she visited Elishbea?), and his dialect is influenced by the Hebrew (unlike Galilean, dialect of ?the Galilee of the gentile?) ?ben?.
It?s not the only supposed wordplay, but it?s the most visible.
Reply
#2
This is not the only wordplay that is missed in the Peshitta. As I had mentioned a few months ago, in Matthew we see a similar problem, which I have expounded upon here:

http://aramaicnt.org/articles/problems-w...a-primacy/

The one you have noticed in Luke is another good example. The same problem happens in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus is naming Peter (it misses the pun with /)bn/ and /bny/).

In Galilean Aramaic (and Western Aramaic dialects in general) /kyp/ and /)bn/ are used side-by-side and interchangeably and far more often.

Syriac is an Eastern dialect, and leaned in the wrong direction here.
Reply
#3
Hi Memradya, welcome!

I have problems with the phrase 'peshitta primacy'. Because, it would mean that the NT was penned directly in Syriac dialect (being the Peshitta), which I doubt and which I also did not see as a strong statement here in this forum but the year A.D. 78 is an important year. In that year, at least the gospels would already exist in Syriac language.
e.g. see <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2069&start=0">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2069&start=0</a><!-- l -->

However, some do have the opinion that Syriac was a kind of 'koine Aramaic' in the Middle-East. That might be very true but it would not explain that this was the preferred written language among the Jewish apostles, as I also doubt that e.g. Flavius Josephus would have used Syriac for his Original historical (lost) works (however there are Syriac copies of his work I remember).

Both Peshitta and Greek have an jewish Aramaic ancestor (and a few might agree). They are translated from it. Peshitta, though and it sounds logically, has a lot more preserved wordplays than any other ancient witness of NT scripture.
So, Steve and memradya, I've seen a few wordplays which work only with Hebrew dialect and the 'stones' and 'children' version in Hebrew Aramaic dialect is a well known one <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Regards
Reply
#4
:

Can you tell me what the term "Edessian letters/script" means exactly? Steve or Distazo...what was the main or common language spoken in Edessa in say, 78 A.D.??? Theres a good reason I ask here.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#5
Shlama?

When I say Aramaic primacy, I don?t mean that the dialect of the Peshitta was the one of Jesus, or that the Peshitta is the ?original version? written by the apostles. I mean that the Gospels aren?t born written in Greek nor in Hebrew. For me, the gospels were first composed in the mother?s tongue of the Apostles (Aramaic, whatever the dialect is), then written down (always in Aramaic) and for the Hellenistic, they (the gospels) were translated into Greek the same way that the Torah was translated into Aramaic?
So I agree with Distazo, I think the Peshitta is a revision of an original text written in a different dialect.

I know nothing at all about Galilean dialect, so if you have some example of this dialect, I?d like to read it. But even without knowing it, I think about this: Jesus is a Galilean, and the Galilee has seen a lot of Greek speaker come? Also it wouldn?t be weird that the dialect spoken by Jesus , was influenced by the Greek? and the Syriac (unlike the Hebrew-Aramaic dialect, Mandaic?) is composed of many Greek words. I?d be not surprised if the tongue of Jesus was influenced by Syriac. Moreover, some testimony of the Aramaic language of Jesus that we find in the Greek, can give an additional argument. An example: ephphata/ephpheta (in Bezae D 05) looks more like the Syriac ethpa??el/ethp??el than the Aramaic hithpa??el. An example is the drop of the iota in some manuscripts with [talitha/tabitha] qoum, what appeared in syriac. There?s the ?qorban? too where the Peshitta has qorbany?

What I want to mean that the dialect of Jesus can look like the Syriac, and that the Peshitta, is not disconnected of the tongue of Jesus. The Peshitta is a reliable Text even, if sometime it wouldn?t be the case because of the specificity of the dialects? In Luke, it?s John who speaks and (I think) is not a Galilean so he don?t speak the same dialect as Jesus. The peshitta can?t reproduce exactly what it ?s said, but stay the nearest of the original says? (but in any case, no text can?t have the exactly speeches because there?s for example the sayings of Pilatos who didn?t speak Aramaic, the different dialects ?)

About the link (78 A.D.), is that text a Peshitta, or an another version ? Because Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius) kwew a such gospel, but it's not sure it was the Peshitta...

Ciao
Reply
#6
Shlama akhay,


i have to STRONGLY disagree with the consensus here. i see a very intelligent word-play preserved in the Eastern Peshitta in both this verse and its synoptic in Mattai 3:9. it stood out brilliantly when i was reading these verses just last week. this was the note i prepared for the word-play as it originally appears in the Aramaic of Mattai. please consider:

The Aramaic word for ?sons? here is B?NAYA. It very closely sounds like another Aramaic word for ?stone,? ABNA. This is significant, in that the play centers on the initial term of KEEPHE? ?stones,? and then brings up the word for ?sons,? which happens to sound very much like a less-used synonym for KEEPHE?. This would key the listeners as well as the reader into the implied plays taking place: bring up the common Aramaic term for "stone," then use a word that actually sounds very much like the rarer word for "stone." I'm no native speaker of the language, but i caught this immediately, so i can only imagine that those who originally heard understood, and were partly wowed, partly miffed at the pun/stab.

Indeed, ABNA only appears once in the Eastern Peshitta New Covenant writings! So it sounds like Yukhanan is saying ?from these (common) stones Alaha is able to rise up (rare) stones.? This is of further significance in that the two words signifying ?stones? in the Aramaic language also have cognates in the Hebrew language under the terms KEPH and EBEN. However, in the Hebrew corpus of Scripture, the term EBEN is prolific, whereas KEPH is used only twice, and negatively, at that. This shows that the ancient divinely-inspired use for ?stone? favored EBEN, which is a further hinted-at play signifying that the original intention was to make sons / children for Alaha. In contrast, the Greek text does not provide a play between the words for ?stones? and ?sons.? The depth of this word-play deserves attention, as it shows the hand of the Rukha at work in the words of Yukhanan so simply, yet so profoundly.

my two-sheqels worth....

Jeremy
Reply
#7
I agree with Jeremy, of course.

The speculation in the OP centers around a wordplay that exists in no extant text. It is merely reconstruction-ism/conjecture to assume that ABNA must have been used.

Akhi Steven Caruso - "Missed Wordplay" is a strong proposal, and assumes that you have a primary text to reference. It is only "missed" if you _assume_ that was the exact original wording. Absent a "Galilean" text with the wordplay you propose, it is merely that - a proposal. Interesting hypothesis, but nothing more. I realize that is your passion, but please realize mine is dealing in real primary sources. If you have one, I'd love to see it.

Textual criticism is fraught with dangers, one of them is demonstrated clearly in the reasoning being displayed by some posters on this thread. Once you conjecture what a reading "must/might/should/could" have been, it is easy to lean in all sorts of directions that amount to nothing more than potentially misleading pseudo-scholarship.

+Shamasha
Reply
#8
Hi Paul,

The Hebrew versions of Matthew, which are found in Middle-Age versions from Shem Tob, have this wordplay. Of course, these Hebrew versions (there are 3 of them) are subject to doubts whether or not they are authentic or just translated back from some vulgate/greek source.
Reply
#9
distazo Wrote:Hi Paul,

The Hebrew versions of Matthew, which are found in Middle-Age versions from Shem Tob, have this wordplay. Of course, these Hebrew versions (there are 3 of them) are subject to doubts whether or not they are authentic or just translated back from some vulgate/greek source.

Hi Akhi Distazo,

Matthew Black (among other authors) made this, and many other proposals in his book "An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels." The problem you encounter is what I described, you first postulate the wordplay and then try to find evidence to support it despite the obstacles (medieval Hebrew manuscripts being the least of your problems).

We compare what we have (solid primary texts) to the Greek (a formidable, entrenched opponent). Not imaginary, wishful-thinking scenarios against the Greek. We weaken our case with such nonsense.

+Shamasha
Reply
#10
"Because Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius) knew of such a gospel, but it's not sure it was the Peshitta..."

Hello everyone.
A word of caution concerning "Hegesippus". Jay Raskin, _Christs and Christianities_, tears apart Eusebius as a "Master Forger" and shows that "Hegesippus" is a manufactured character created solely to provide quote material for whatever platform Eusebius is promoting at that particular time.
Eusebius is NOT to be trusted here. "Hegisippus" is fictitious.

CW
Reply
#11
:

How does Jay know for sure, Charles? What evidence does he show? Perhaps Eusebius is also a fictional character created by some other "Master Forger".
Reply
#12
Shlama' and thank for the answers.

It was why I posted this question, because and wanted some ? news ? thinking about this (hypothetical) wordplay. The Peshitta is saved ^^.
There?s some beautiful (I don?t if we can really call them) puns with the reading by the Peshitta). It would be a good thing that I make a post about it and that I share with you some of the studies of the Association EEChO Enjeux de l??tude du Christianisme des Origines (Exploring and Educating about Christianity?s Origins). Their work is about the oral tradition and show how it is behind the structure of the gospels, and how it is ?written? in the Peshitta/Peshitto. The ?difficulty? is that I don?t think everybody here speaks French <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue --> , and it?ll be hard for me to write a post in English, but I can try. It will take time however, exept if I have some help...

Well, we find alliteration in Mark 1; 9: waHwa byawmaTHa Hanon eTHa yisho? min nasraTH daglila weTH?medh bYOrdNAN min YOhaNAN. But in next verse, we have more than alliteration:

Wmehza, dasleq min maya? / hza, destzeqw shmaya?.

And the best for the end : (?) ?at o bery habiva bar estvith (not less than 5 beth in 6 words). It would be difficult to say that the tongue of the Peshitta are completely different from the originally one. So I think the Peshitta is a tostomony of the Apostle? gospel, but I was sure about the hypothetical wordplay? I think it?s good now.

About the ?forgery? of Hegesippus, I?m really not sure. I don?t see why Eusebius would make that. Eusebius -who supports Rome and his supremacy- wouldn?t have created a Jew who became Christian and who use some oral traditions for supporting his point of view. It?s very usual to say that Eusebius is a Master Forger (especially to say that the Christ is a complete fabrication and that the gospels are forged by him and Constantine). And according to the book Histoire de la litt?rature chr?tienne antique grecque et latine, Volume 1, Heggsippus is quoted by Philip of Side and by Stephano Gabaro who is quoted by of Photius.
Reply
#13
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Akhi Distazo,

Matthew Black (among other authors) made this, and many other proposals in his book "An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels." The problem you encounter is what I described, you first postulate the wordplay and then try to find evidence to support it despite the obstacles (medieval Hebrew manuscripts being the least of your problems).

We compare what we have (solid primary texts) to the Greek (a formidable, entrenched opponent). Not imaginary, wishful-thinking scenarios against the Greek. We weaken our case with such nonsense.

+Shamasha
Akhi
I agree and that's why I removed reference to such 'wordplays' in my own Dutch translation (in footnotes) a few years ago, that had no solid evidence.
Reply
#14
Paul Younan Wrote:Akhi Steven Caruso - "Missed Wordplay" is a strong proposal, and assumes that you have a primary text to reference. It is only "missed" if you _assume_ that was the exact original wording. Absent a "Galilean" text with the wordplay you propose, it is merely that - a proposal. Interesting hypothesis, but nothing more. I realize that is your passion, but please realize mine is dealing in real primary sources. If you have one, I'd love to see it.

Akhi Paul - Aye I don't expect to find us seeing eye-to-eye on this as we're both well-invested in our own particular frameworks.

Mine is, by its very nature, somewhat speculative in trying to work with dialects of Aramaic closer to what Jesus and his early disciples spoke. It's a holographic and multi-disciplinary approach, pulling from a variety of sources and studies. I cannot claim absolute certainty about any of my own conclusions, although I do invest a goodly amount of confidence with them.

This isn't founded upon an observation of Galilean, more than an observation of Classical Syriac.

Classical Syriac, by all accounts, was not Jesus' mother tongue, nor what he conversed with. He was a Galilean, and his early followers were known for their speech as Galileans (which was quite distinct). There was no Syriac in Galilee or Judea on record until well after Jesus' time, and the only Syriac inscription that is anywhere to the proper time period was on the coffin of a Pagan who converted to Judaism which had to be re-inscribed in local Western Jewish Aramaic right underneath to be understood by the common man (the script and cadence was decidedly foreign and unintellgible).

Additionally the Peshitta as we have it is in Classical Syriac, not in "contemporary" Old Syriac; therefore, at any time that Jesus or his followers are quoted in the Peshitta, it's a translation at best, and a translation of a translation of an indirect quote at worst. If we were to take the middle road, it's still not a "primary" source, linguistically at all.

This is why trying to understand things from Jesus' dialect is important *even* for Peshitta studies. The Peshitta being written in *an* Aramaic language, brings us closer to Jesus' words, in a tangible sense, from the very offset. There is little disputing that Syriac, linguistically, is closer than Greek. However, it's improper to claim it's the very words of Jesus himself or even "good enough."

However, we can put that aside for now. :-)

The relationship between /kyp/-/)bn/-/bny/ is rather well-established between dialects. The noun /)bn/ "rock" is *exceedingly* rare in Syriac. For example, the CAL corpus returns 928 uses of /kyp/ but only *9* of /)bn/ for its holdings (that's less than 1%), and of all of those 9 it seems to be used in translational context only:

1x Peshitta Isaiah,
1x Peshitta Psalms,
1x Peshitta 1st Peter quoting the OT,
1x Peshitta Wisdom of Solomon,
2x Jacob of Serug's poetry "Concerning the Composition of Man" using a Jewish epithet,
3x Jacob of Serug's "Against the Jews" mostly quoting scripture and Jewish epithets, engaging speakers of another dialect.

Given this, the /kyp/-/)bn/ difference is functionally a shibboleth (it meets the conventional definition).

This is why I say with a safe amount of confidence that the Peshitta will "miss" any puns involving the noun /)bn/ simply because that's how Classical Syriac *works*. :-)

That conclusion, at least, is not a "must/might/should/could" but what we have quantitatively observed about Classical Syriac.
Reply
#15
Quote:There is little disputing that Syriac, linguistically, is closer than Greek. However, it's improper to claim it's the very words of Jesus himself or even "good enough."

Really? Not "good enough"??? Interesting statement there Steve, I hope I misunderstood you.

Is this why you are trying so hard to figure out what the Galilean dialect might have been, so you can make His words "good enough". Please say no.

Also, I had asked you a question a few days ago, maybe you missed it. I asked what you thought the term "Edessian letters" might mean, as to the script and text of the NT used in Edessa as early as 78 A.D. What would we call such a language that was in such letters?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)