Acts 9:33

[Mike Kar]

Bad Me!!

1 Cor 1:22. That is: "For Jews ''DEMAND'' a sign and Greeks ''SEEK/ASK'' for Wisom . . ." (My paraphrase but very close to the words of the NT Greek.

"Aitousin" and "Zeitousin" are the 2 words at play here.

kYou see, sometimes we have to give Zorba a chance too.

Mike

[Burning one]

Shlama Mike,

thanks for the passages! i'll check them out.

here's the word-play arena:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=15

hope that helps you out!


Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah),
Jeremy

[Mike Kar]

More credits for Zorba:

Alright , this will be all for Zorba today since he getting quite a few RBIs. Enough is enough:

More word plays in the Greek:

James 4:13 has 2 words that play on eachother: "POREUSOMETHA'' (To go; to proceed) plays with the 2nd word "EMPOREUSOMETHA'' (To do business. To make a profit). Both words I have transliterated and the 2 Greek words are not the same. Both of these words w/i James 4:13 are in the 1st person - Future - Middle Indicative and Plural form.

Also, there is James 1:5 and these 2 words play on eachother: "DIDONTOS" (To Give) and "ONEIDIZONTOS" (To reproach; to criticise and to chide).

You know Burning One, I also have a pretty good hunch that I could find a bunch of others as well. And I will keep throwing them at you if you want me to. But this will be enough for today, I think, as I am on some time constraints.


What does this possibly tell us about Aramaic Primacy??

It tells us in the field of "word plays" that Aramaic has no advantage over the Greek whatsoever when it comes to proving New Testament originality. Not in this scope of things.

BE easy on me now because I thought that the NT Greek had just a handful of verses that had word plays. Now I think I am finding a slew of them. If this be the case then Aramaic Primacy defenders can not appeal to WORD PLAYS for New Testament Aramaic Primacy over the Greek NT. Unless. . .

the number of word plays in the Armaic NT far, far exceeds the number of word plays in the Greek NT. But I doubt this is the case.

I will be much inclined in favor of Aramaic Primacy if this argument of word-plays is likened to that of LOAN WORDS. Both the Aramaic NT and Greek NT both make use of loan words. But to my elementary knowledge(from what I have read) the number of Greek loan words from the Aramaic far exceeds vice-versa (Aramaic loan words from the Greek.)


Thanks for your input and time.


Warmly,

Mike

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Mike,

You know, word plays are a complicated thing. For one, even in translated languages (like English) word-plays are present ... either by accident, or they simply carry through language barriers from the original to the translated language. My point is, some word plays come through in other languages, others do not.

Take for example the often-cited wordplay in the original Hebrew of Genesis:

"And Adam said: ???This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman (Ishah), because she was taken out of Man.??? (Ish)"

In English "man" and "woman" are also a word-play in that case, since "woman" is derived from "man" in English just as "Ishah" is derived from "Ish" in Hebrew. Is this a word-play in English also?

The "Rock" example you gave is a similar example....that word play is present in any language that is translated from the original, it is also present in the Aramaic "Kepha". "Petros" and "Petra" therefore don't qualify as a word play unique to Greek. The reason is quite simple: the proper masculine name, Petros, is derived from the base "Petra" for rock. A word that is a derivative of another word for grammatical purposes is usually not a good candidate for a word-play.

And also, just because two words sound similar does not necessarily mean that the author is playing on the meaning of the words. More likely than not, those types of examples are merely coincidence.

The closest example to a Greek word-play I see in the examples you gave is the name of Onesimus, and the apparent play on "usefulness" that Paul draws upon. However, that simply could be because Paul knew the meaning of his name - not necessarily that he wrote the passage in Greek.

Let me give you an example with your own name:

"Mike, you are a very Godly person"

In the English sentence above, I played on the meaning of your Hebrew name. "Mikha-el" in Hebrew and Aramaic means "Like God". But I didn't write the sentence above in Hebrew, did I? I wrote it in English, and because I know the meaning of your name in Hebrew, I drew a play on it with words.

You could respond to me:

"Paul, you are a very short-sighted person"

And you would be playing with the meaning of my Latin name, which is "short." But you wouldn't have spoken the sentence above in Latin, right?

[enarxe]

[i]Thanks for your replies everyone and thanks , Paul, for clearing that up. I see your point now about Luke bringing up the word play in the narrative.

AS for the rest, the word play in the Greek that immediatley comes to mind (the one that are addressed in sermons alot) is found in Philemon; which is the one that I believe may be the one you have in mind (was it Burning One who asked?? Sorry, I forgot. Maybe it was Enarxe. Sorry guys.)

T'was me, en arxe. I was not aware of the interpretation of Onesimus (or forgot?). Actually, I meant pneuma and rukha from Yukhanan, which in Greek and Aramaic have double meanings and I think this is utilized by Yeshu' (J 3:8).

Thanks for listing those examples and taking the time to respond. I will eventually check them all.

Onesimus case is not very convincing for Greek primacy as it is a proper name of Greek origin and if the meaning of it was known to Philemon and to Shaul (which I believe it was) then this is a word play in either language, so not evidence either way. Similarly with one of the other examples, 1 Cor 2:22, it is just the same conjugation, incidental, happens. But I have to admit that it sounds like a rhymed proverb, who knows, maybe it was?

Oh, and the "bad me" example - is it some sort of a word play in English ? Cause I did not get it... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->. I hope you didn't really feel bad. I simply like examples, this is what drives people ... and myself.

An agreed working definition of a wordplay is clearly needed. For me a wordplay is a use of a word with double meaning or very similarly sounding which with high probability has been used by the author intentionally to illustrate something or for the sole purpose of using and toying with it. It is more the author playing with the words than the words playing with each other (which easily happens in any language, occasionally). To finish with some conclusion - some of the word plays in NT are just plays of our minds, not of the original authors, I'm afraid. Or maybe I'm just in a grumpy mood today? What I'd like to see is a list of "hard examples", the ones that cannot be refuted, like pneuma-rukha (unfortunately this one happens on both sides). One list for Aramaic, one for Greek.

Shalom,
Jerzy

[Mike Kar]

You all make some good points. It does appear that, maybe, on the Greek side his examples of word plays could be a little liberal. It is hard to tell, then, if Paul was being intentional or not (with 1 Cor 1:22 in mind for example). It just seems to me the verbs in this verse of "seek" and "demand" are like parallel phrases within the same sentance and the rhyme really sounds good:

"Jews DEMAND a sign and . . .
Greeks SEEK wisdom, but . . ." (the rhyme is not in the english but in the Greek, of course.)

To me that is a pretty could play on words or it could be an intentional rhyming scheme used by Paul.

As far as the Matthew 16:16-18 passage with Y'shua's comment about his plan for the Church I just believe that the PETROS-PETRA combination was intentional. I don't believe that it was coincedental that Jesus used these words and "toyed" them with one another. But it could be that this "toying" of these 2 words do not meet the definition of word play. Then we would have to have a meeting and actually define what play on words are. Still, there is something about these words (inentional or not) that Jesus purposely used to his advantage here. IOW, this word combination of PETROS-PETRA has a "ring" to it and I like that.

But in the Aramaic there does not seem to be a word play because in this context both words that Yeshua used are the same: KEEFA-KEEFA. Am I right??

Oh, yes Jerzy. That "bad me" statement was made because I did not quote 1 Cor 1:22 the way I wanted to the first time that I cited it. No intentional play on words at all

I am no scholar here.

That said, I will close for today on this thread.

Thanks

Mike Karoules

[distazo]

Hi All,

I don't want to be a killjoy here <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> but isn't Enea in vers 33 in 'vocative' form?

I'm not good at Greek grammar, maybe some one here could confirm or deny that missing the 'S' and the end of Enea can be explained by that?

Not that the Hebrew wordplay would be explained but I can imagine that a Greek primacists would refute it by saying that.

Regards

[CreationTruth]

Shlama Mike

The Philimon 1:11 example appears to be the same base word with a different suffix and not a word play according to strongs concordance and written in KJV

G890
achrestos
akh'-race-tos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G5543; inefficient, that is, (by implication) detrimental: - unprofitable.

G2173
euchrestos
yoo'-khrays-tos
From G2095 and G5543; easily used, that is, useful: - profitable, meet for use.

The words used here in KJV it read profitable and unprofitable. Other translations use similar words.
I don't think those two words could be considered word plays.
The other example seems to be a word play. I would like to see the Peshitta version.

Shlama w'burkate