Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Janus parallelism in the OT
“The corresponding Aramaic form for the Word God is ʼĔlāhā ܐܠܗܐ in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply 'God'. It would be more accurate to use the form as used in Biblical Aramaic, which would be the form used by Jesus in His day, instead of the Assyrian form.”
Was the dialect used “The Passion of the Christ” of Mel Gibson “the form used by Jesus in His day”?

“when translating into English, it should be translated, ‘God’. To used the word ‘Allah' in the English translation is not justifiable, particularly when referring to the Biblical Aramaic. The Peshitta in English does not use the word ‘Allah’, it uses ‘God’. Other English translations of the Aramaic NT also use ‘God’.”
Do you think it’s inadvisable for a translation to have transliterations-- i.e. untranslated words whose sounds are roughly approximated with the new language’s alphabet characters?  Re:  “other English translations of the Aramaic NT also use ‘God,’” does that include the translation done by Etheridge?
Matthew 1:23 - Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth the son, and they shall call his name Amanuel; which is interpreted, With us (is) our Aloha.

“I do believe Jesus and many of his disciples normally spoke Aramaic and would therefore require a translation process to write it into the Greek language, so there certainly would be traces of Aramaic origins in the Greek text”
What are 3 of those “traces of Aramaic origins in the Greek text”?

“Janus parallelism in Greek manuscripts - relevancy ??    Some believe there are Janus parallelisms in Job and that is not in Greek.”

Poetic features such as rhyming and Janus parallelism are far more likely to be lost during a translation from an original language, compared with being added during a translation into another language.  Job is loaded with Janus parallisms.  Are you aware of any such instances in the Greek translation of Job?

_Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job_
This book, a revised version of the author's doctoral dissertation, provides a history of research on the device and details and examines nearly fifty hitherto unrecognized Janus Parallels in the Hebrew Bible (with a specific focus on the book of Job).  Consideration is given to the literary purpose of the device and its social significance. In addition, the monograph examines a number of Janus Parallels in extra-biblical texts of the ancient Near East (including Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Arabic, and Medieval Hebrew).
Other possible cases of Janus parallelism, sometimes tentative, include:
Genesis 6:3 (“going astray”/“in that, inasmuch as”),
Genesis 15:1 (“shield”/“giver, donor”),
Genesis 49:6 (“enter”/“desire” and “be united”/“rejoice”), and
Genesis 49:26 (“parents”/“mountains”)
Exodus 33:13 (“way”/“power”)
Ruth 1:21 (“to answer”/“to afflict”)
Psalm 22:17 (“encircles”/“dismembers”),
Psalm 30:13 (one word can mean “be silent”/“mourn”/“perish,” with connections before and after its occurrence),
Psalm 55:3 (“I groan”/“I am in a panic”), and
Psalm 75:2 (“your name”/“your heavens”)
Jeremiah 25:10 (“tillage” or “tilled land”/“lamp” — but Noegel disputes this, arguing that the meaning of “land” is unsupported)
Habakkuk 3:4 (“rays”/“horns”) and 3:15 (“foaming”/“clay” [for a bowl])
Amos 1:13 (“not let him return”/“blow, fan” [a fire], a wordplay also in Amos 1:6, 9, 11, 2:1, 4, 6)
Nahom 1:8 (“its place”/“the rebels”)  ….
For example, in Isaiah 14:11–13, Noegel finds a Janus parallelism wherein one word can mean both Bright One (Lucifer) and Boastful One.  As Bright One, it is parallel with the “stars of Elohim” in verse 13, while “Boastful One” is parallel with “your pride” in the previous verse.32
In Job 1:20, Job performs four actions: 1) he rends his garment; 2) he shears his head; 3) he falls to the ground; and 4) he prostrates himself.  The third of these can be read either (with the first two) as an act of mourning or (with the last) as an act of worship.

Job 1:20
Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13
Amos 2:1, 4, 6
Ezekial 20:37

“All you've really given me is conjecture. That's great that you feel that certain words work better assuming an Aramaic base, but that proves nothing except personal preference. Even if I were to grant that portions of the Synoptics assume an Aramaic base (Jesus undoubtedly spoke Aramaic),”
And his disciples e.g. John and Peter, plus Paul.

“that hardly proves that the entire New Testament was composed in Aramaic. That supposition is nigh on ludicrous. You've provided a handful of examples from the Gospels and Revelation.”
And Acts.

“As it stands, these are only possible cases that certain words in the Gospels might work better assuming an Aramaic base, but that is still only conjectural. I read the Peshitta years ago and am well acquainted with it. The Oxford version of the Bible includes many of the variations you listed.”
Do those variations include:  a Joseph being Mary’s father in the Mt 1 geneology?  Jesus having a chest and not breasts in Rev 1?

“I don't think you've made a case for the New Testament being composed in Aramaic as a whole. There's a mountain of evidence that is against your supposition. One is that the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are all in Greek (not a one in Aramaic - that's a fact).  We're not talking about Medieval versions here, we're talking about actual manuscripts dated to within a few centuries of the disciples.”
How old are those mss.?  (older than A.D. 175?)
How old are the oldest mss. among the mss. of Mt Mk Lk and Jn?

“Plus, there's tons of evidence supporting the opposite of what you're saying, i.e. that versions like the Peshitta are dependent on the Septuagint for the Old Testament. This is obvious when one compares the Peshitta to the Septuagint and the Masoretic text (I've done this personally). Often, the Peshitta agrees with the Septuagint against the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Peshitta being the sole Semitic witness of very specific readings only found in the Septuagint. Paul quotes from the Septuagint pretty much exclusively, almost word for word. Never does he quote from a known Semitic version we now possess.”
I’ve not yet studied the subject of quotations in the Septuagint vs. Peshitta OT vs. Peshitta NT vs. Dead Sea Scrolls vs. Masoretic vs. Byzantine Greek vs. Alexandrian Greek, but it sounds fascinating.  In your comparing, did you include looking at the Peshitta OT?  What are 2 instances where the Byzantine Greek Paul clearly quotes the Septuagint, and _not_ the Peshitta OT?  What are 2 instances where the Peshitta has “the sole Semitic witness of very specific readings only found in the Septuagint”?

What are the differences between the Peshitta and the Septuagint?
Going back to the OT: The Dead Sea Scrolls show that there were manuscripts in the 1st-century that supported the LXX readings, and other manuscripts that they call Proto-Masoretic, reading more like the Masoretic text of 1000AD.
In most cases, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Peshitta, and the LXX agree, but there are many text segments that support Masoretic text, so it’s not a clear picture.
Then there are the scholars that say the Byzantine Greek manuscripts have such close agreement to the Aramaic Peshitta, that they wonder if the Peshitta was one of their base texts, while the Alexandrian Greek family seems to have it’s own historical path, separate from the Peshitta, from the Greeks in Alexandria.  ….
Some scholars point out that the OT quotes in the Greek-based NT seem to line up with the Greek LXX, so the Apostles must have spoke and written in Greek, but the Aramaic scholars counter by showing how the OT quotes in the Peshitta line up with the Peshitta Tanakh, so they must have spoken and written in Aramaic.
There does seem to be more evidence supporting them speaking in Aramaic, and Josephus states that learning Greek was greatly discouraged, so it’s likely the NT was originally Aramaic.
"This challenge is added to the challenge I gave above that you provide some examples of ancient New Testament fragments in Aramaic that compare with the thousands of Greek fragments going all the way back to the early second century"
I give you the pre-A.D. 175 Diatesseron, which quoted about 95% of the Aramaic NT Gospels, and which we have today as a translation from Aramaic into Arabic.
What do you have for me? ("thousands of Greek fragments" that add up to what, a net 2 pages worth of material?)

Tatian, who died around A.D. 175, composed the Diatesseron (a consolidation of the 4 Gospels) using the Aramaic. That was translated into Arabic, which we have today:
The Greek manuscripts have many variants. In many instances, the Aramaic and the Diatesseron agree as to what the original renditions of various Gospel passages were:

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)