02-28-2013, 05:24 PM
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
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