Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Qnoma?...definition
#16
Shlama Akhi Paul,


I recognize the general translation problems that always exist; especially when contrasting a semitic and non semitic language.
Please tell me where "qnoma" occurs in The OT Peshitta. I also would like to know the Hebrew cognate for qnoma.

Your answer glosses over most of my main points, especially the NT parallel passages of Luke 11:17.

I understand that napsha's basic meaning is "breath"; that is not always the applied meaning; it has other uses; I refer to "self" as the meaning in Matthew 12:25 and Mark 3:24,25, as well as Luke 11:17.

The Gospel writer Luke found "qnoma" a useful one word parallel to "napsha" in 11:17;"napsha" is translated "itself" in this verse by you and every other translator of The Peshitta I can find .The same applies ,of course, to the parallel verses in Matthew and Mark.

If "eautos"-("itself") is good enough for the parallel verses, it is good enough for "qnoma" in Luke 11:17 which stands in for "napsha".

divided itself against house
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]glptm hmwnq l9d 0tybw [/font](Phrase in Luke 11:17)

divided itself against house
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]glptn h$pn l9 0tyb [/font](Phrase in Mark. 3:25)

itself against divided & city house every
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]h$pn l9 glptnd 0nydmw yb lkw[/font](Phrase in Mat. 12:25)

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb F0ygs [/font]


Dave B
Reply
#17
Hi Paul and Forum:
It should not come as a surprise that there are not always universal cognates between languages. The way Hebrew and Aramaic developed was different than Greek, Latin or English. Therefore cognates cannot always be found, between languages in a single ROOT.

The Aramaic word "qnoma" has no Greek, Hebrew or English cognate. However, when it is used in the Peshitta it is used contextually and these together give us a broad meaning of the meaning of the word. Another example of this is the Hebrew word "olam" and the Aramaic cognate "alama" which contextually can mean either "world" or "eternal". In John 3:16 this ROOT appears twice in the Peshitta. The first time it appears contextually as "world" and the second time it appears contextually as "eternal". The Greek follows with a necessary dualism, first with "cosmos" (world) then respectively with "aon" (eternal).

Coming back to "qnoma", I find it best to let Jesus and the Apostle Paul define it's use and parameters as in Luke 11:17, John 5:26, 6:53, Romans 9:3, 1Corinthians 9:27, 2Corinthians 12:15, Ephesians 2:15,Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 1:3.

Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages that have always shared at least 90% of their cognates (ROOT WORDS). The same cognates are shared with ancient Akkadian and Sumerian. What allowed Hebrew and Aramaic to survive, while Akkadian and Sumerian died out was the use of the Phoenecian Alphabet (22 phonetics, each represented by a single shape, related to the actual sound made in the mouth) , as opposed to cuniform (a system of articulated wedges used primarily on a tablet of soft clay). Chinese characters are descended from cuniform. So Aramaic and Hebrew survived because they had a 22 letter phonetic alphabet.

The Greeks borrowed from the Phoenecian alphabet. They corrupted the use of the ancient cognates (ROOT WORDS) by replacing them with their own (patterned after their idolatrous religions).

I perceive also, that the development of Classical Greek is a valiant attempt to organize it into a very readable story type language. Ancient Greek writings reflect their world view (Aristotle, Homer). There is a correlation between Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek, in their false deities. They all are inseparably linked by superstition, to annular astronomical positions of the sun, moon and stars coupled with agrarian cycles of the annular seasons. They just use different names for their false deities.

On the other hand, Aramaic and Hebrew seem to have developed differently than Greek. Their is no hint of idolatry in the development of Aramaic and Hebrew. Abram "crossed over" ("eevree"-became a Hebrew) when he migrated from Ur to Haran. Haran (Central Syria) was the hub of the Aramaic language. Ur (from where Abram originated), south of Babylon was still using cuniform while Abram learned to use the Phonecian alef-bet. It is here that Abram learned to articulate with his mouth the answer of faith that pleased Elohim, and was counted to Abram as righteousness.

Perhaps the development of Hebrew was from Aramaic. As the Hebrew language developed so also did the historical (written record) of the nation of Israel, fathered by faithful Abraham. From the nation of Israel came the Bible, first the TaNaK (Old Testament) then with the appearing of the Messiah the completion of the Aramaic New Testament. Undoubtedly the Peshitta New Testament is as close to the ???autograph??? as we can get.

With the example of Greek following Aramaic grammatical structuring, such as Casus Pendens, the Greek New Testament would appear to be a valiant attempt at an "interlinear translation", produced together by learned Greek and Aramaic speaking Christians in the humble tradition of Abraham, to pass on the written Gospel to the nations of the world.

Sh'lama,
Stephen Silver.
Reply
#18
Shlama Akhi Dave,

gbausc Wrote:Please tell me where "qnoma" occurs in The OT Peshitta. I also would like to know the Hebrew cognate for qnoma.

First you have to understand a little bit about the word "qnoma" itself. The word is a noun derived from the verbal root "qom" (as in "Talitha qomi".) The verb means "to rise, to stand up, to be present."

As such, the root of this word is found thousands of times in both the Hebrew and the Aramaic of the OT. (not just the Peshitta OT, but also the original Hebrew.)


gbausc Wrote:Your answer glosses over most of my main points, especially the NT parallel passages of Luke 11:17.

Akhi, I answered your main points and did not gloss over at all. Perhaps you glossed over my answers.

"Napsha" can validly be substituted for "Qnoma", because they both refer to the same thing, although at different levels. "Napsha" describes an entity at the physical level ("breathing") while "Qnoma" describes the same thing at the conceptual level ("existing".)

You say that you understand that "Naphsha"s main meaning is "breath", yet you fail to admit that this has no similiar usage with the English "self."

You are dancing around some basic facts about linguistics. You cannot call "Napsha" the cognate of the English "self" - if the English "self" does not contain all the same imagery as the Semitic term.

Akhi, I translate many times something where the only thing I can do is approximate....look for the closest term in English. That doesn't mean that there always is one - but I have to choose something even when a perfect match does not exist.

Ask any translator - they'll tell you the same thing.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#19
Paul Younan Wrote:First you have to understand a little bit about the word "qnoma" itself. The word is a noun derived from the verbal root "qom" (as in "Talitha qomi".) The verb means "to rise, to stand up, to be present."

Paul is this related to the aramaic word for resurrection?
Reply
#20
Hi Akhi Michael,

Yes, indeed. The word for "resurrection" in Aramaic is "Qeyamtha", which is also derived from the root "Qom."

The reason why Prof. Brock and others have concluded that the CoE definition for Qnoma is the archaic one, is because of the imagery involved with the primitive root meaning "to rise up, stand up, to be established."

"Kyana" means "nature" in an abstract sense, and "Qnoma" means an "individuated kyana", i.e., "something which has arisen, stood up, and become established from an abstract concept."
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#21
shlam lakh ah Paul,

In Maronite and Catholic theology we say:
That in Jesus there's:
Two Nature, One Person.

How would that fit into the definitions of qnoma, kyana, and naphsha?

I known that Assyrian say:
Msheeha Msheeha walaha alaha!

Does that fit into the definitions you provided?

poosh bashlama,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#22
Shlama Akhi Abudar,

We say: two kyane (natures, Divine and Human), two qnome (real, individuated kyane) united in one parsopa (person.)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#23
shlama ah Paul,

So why do people consider the Maronite/Catholic point of vue and the Assyrian point of vue different from each other? Have we had centuries of useless arguments, have we always had the same point of vue in a different way of saying thing?

shlame wiqore,
keefa-moroon

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Abudar,

We say: two kyane (natures, Divine and Human), two qnome (real, individuated kyane) united in one parsopa (person.)
Reply
#24
Shlama Akhi Paul,


Thank you for your responses and patience. I still have some bones to pick, however. Is Luke 11:17 discussing a conceptual house and Matthew 12:25 a physical house?

You say "napsha" is not cognate with "self", yet you translate it as "self" many times. I understand that a cognate may not always exist, but still a fairly good approximation may usually exist.

I don't believe in perfect translations; only in the original; yet I do believe the essential ideas may be conveyed through a good translation.

The "two qnomas of Christ" bothers me , because I cannot find it in The Peshitta.


[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb F0ygs [/font]


Dave B
Reply
#25
abudar2000 Wrote:So why do people consider the Maronite/Catholic point of vue and the Assyrian point of vue different from each other? Have we had centuries of useless arguments, have we always had the same point of vue in a different way of saying thing?

Ridiculous, isn't it? When people want to find a difference just so that they could get back at another person, they will use any excuse. It has been a useless 15 centuries of bickering!

In this case, we believe essentially the same thing - only the formulas and terminology used to express it are different.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#26
Maybe what we're doing on the internet are baby steps towards enlightenment, and an end to ignorance!

poosh bashlomo aho suryoyo deel,
keefa-moroon

Paul Younan Wrote:
abudar2000 Wrote:So why do people consider the Maronite/Catholic point of vue and the Assyrian point of vue different from each other? Have we had centuries of useless arguments, have we always had the same point of vue in a different way of saying thing?

Ridiculous, isn't it? When people want to find a difference just so that they could get back at another person, they will use any excuse. It has been a useless 15 centuries of bickering!

In this case, we believe essentially the same thing - only the formulas and terminology used to express it are different.
Reply
#27
Shlama Akhi Dave,

gbausc Wrote:Thank you for your responses and patience. I still have some bones to pick, however. Is Luke 11:17 discussing a conceptual house and Matthew 12:25 a physical house?


Neither is talking about a house. If we think of a house (conceptual or physical) when reading that idiom, we miss the point of the teaching entirely.

How can you even imagine "self" being translated in Hebrews 10:1 ??? That verse alone should tell you that we have no English cognate to "Qnoma!"

gbausc Wrote:You say "napsha" is not cognate with "self", yet you translate it as "self" many times. I understand that a cognate may not always exist, but still a fairly good approximation may usually exist.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along? There is no English equivalent of "Qnoma", but sometimes the different shades of meaning overlap with some English terms......not any one single English term, but many.

Do you really think that "Qnoma" is the only word that, when I was translating it, I *cringed* because there was no real good English approximation? Do you realize how often that happens to anyone translating from any language into any other language?

Akhan Michael brought this topic up originally about a possible English way of looking at Qnoma, I said I liked it, and you asked why it couldn't just simply be "self" to make it simple.

I like "simple", too. But the problem exists that if you try and force the Aramaic word to have a concrete meaning in English, and insist that the very same concept conveyed in Aramaic must have a cognate, or a way of saying it *simply* in English, then all sorts of problems (like the council of Ephesus) can occur.

We have been searching for a way to say it in English for a long time - but we haven't gotten there yet. By "we", I mean native speakers along with some of the most brilliant minds on earth alive today, people who know Aramaic like the back of their hands.

gbausc Wrote:I don't believe in perfect translations; only in the original; yet I do believe the essential ideas may be conveyed through a good translation.

Absolutely. However, as you already essentially stated, some information is always lost when translating. Not so much so when going from Spanish to English, because these languages belong to the same family......but when going from Aramaic to Greek....or, even worse yet, to English? Wow - we are talking about a BIG jump with a lot of information loss.....or, worse yet, incorrect information gain!

There would be no reason at all to study original languages if a translation was just as good.....if all the same concepts and imagery from a source language could be conveyed equally well in a target language.

This is why you have dozens of translations from just the Greek to the English!! How many do you think it would take to get from Aramaic to English? You could make millions upon millions of translations from Aramaic into English.....and you would still inadequately convey the same imagery that the Aramaic does.

Is that because English is somehow inferior to Aramaic? NO! But they each have their own linguistic psyche. And when languages have different psyche, there is no way on heaven or on earth to align the imagery perfectly!

gbausc Wrote:The "two qnomas of Christ" bothers me , because I cannot find it in The Peshitta.

Sure you can - you can even find it in the English. When Meshikha forgave sins, that was the Divine Qnoma. When He was tempted by Satan, that was the Human Qnoma.

Do you need it to explicitly say "Meshikha had two qnome, one Divine and one Human?" What we are talking about is the mystery of the Incarnation - something that is, essentially, ineffable.

I don't wish to split hairs with you. We've argued about this for 15 centuries.

Orthodox Christianity (all Orthodox Christianity) believes that the subject of the Incarnation was both "God and Man"....not a "God-man." Pagans believed in "god-men." There is a BIG difference between the two.

The way Aramaic-speaking believers understand this revelation (God and Man) is through the concept of "God-Qnoma and Human-Qnoma", and this fits in perfectly with revelation in scripture.

If Meshikha didn't have a Divine Qnoma, then he was a liar. If Meshikha didn't have a Human Qnoma, then the sacrifice is useless and I reject it.

You HAVE to understand that when you even suggest that Meshikha didn't have a divine Qnoma, you are saying that he wasn't God. And if you even suggest that Meshikha didn't have a human Qnoma, then you are saying that he wasn't born of a woman!

In the Aramaic psyche - you cannot be human, and not have a human Qnoma. You cannot be God, and not have a divine Qnoma. In other words, in the Aramaic psyche you cannot go directly from abstract nature to concrete person. That abstract nature must be *individuated* first. That's where Qnoma comes in.

If you tell an Aramaic-speaking person that a bird flying above does not have a "bird qnoma", that person would look at you like you were insane - because what you are saying, essentially, is that you think the bird is imaginary! That you think that bird doesn't exist!

How many ways can I possibly stress this point? You have to understand that Aramaic isn't just a language. That no language is just words....cold words on a dictionary page. All languages come with concepts and imagery associated with technical terms. Aramaic is no different, actually it is a very much an imagery-associated language.

You can't just sit there and look up English "approximations" on C.A.L. and hope to understand what an Aramaic text, or any foreign text, is saying....really saying. You have to study word imagery and concepts that the words in that language are conveying.

Every language has it's own psyche - and the psyche of Aramaic is very, very, very different from the psyche of Greek......let alone English.

I don't know how many more ways I can say this, but I hope I got something across. Like I said, those bi-lingual people who are reading this message understand exactly what I am talking about.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#28
Quote:In the Aramaic psyche - you cannot be human, and not have a human Qnoma. You cannot be God, and not have a divine Qnoma. In other words, in the Aramaic psyche you cannot go directly from abstract nature to concrete person. That abstract nature must be *individuated* first. That's where Qnoma comes in.

Akhi Paul,

So in the Aramaic psyche I can or "must" go:

1. From abstract human nature to/through "individuated" human Qnoma to concrete human Person, and

2. From abstract divine nature to/through "individuated" divine Qnoma to concrete divine Person.

Appreciate your confirmation, and thereafter most probably I would raise a question.

Shlama, george
Reply
#29
shlom lokh oh Paul,

Your definitions have intrigued me, so let see if I fully understand this:

Human kyana (Nature) -> Nature in this case being Abstract and generic to a group of the same type.

Qnoma -> An individual nature, which is distinct from others of the same nature.

Naphsha -> The actual spirit of this qnoma (more than one qnoma can exit in one soul), entering the person and animating this person.
Each soul is unique to one person.

Parsupha -> The actual person which contains this animated soul. As such the soul gives the final shape/form of the person.
Each person is unique.


So when God said that he knew Daniel before he was born, then God is saying that he knew his naphsha (soul), which consisted of his qnoma (qnoma being his individuated nature, from the rest of the human nature). As such when the animated soul entered Daniel's person, it animated his person based on Daniel's soul image.

I guess the same would apply to Adam, when God said that He brought him to life by breathing through his nostral, knowing that the word naphsha originaly meant breath.


Tel me ah, am I close?

Poosh bashlomo malpon Paul,
keefa-moroon
PS. I just thought about something:
In Lebanon we say the following:

-When we describe something generic to all humans we say:
That's human nature.

-When we describe something specific to us we say:
That's my nature.

-When we ask God for help we say:
God save my soul.

-When we ask for health assitance from God we say:
God heal my body, and purify my soul.
Reply
#30
Shlama Akhi Paul,

You admit that even Aramaic speaking Christians differ widely on the meaning of "qnoma", as they differ widely in their theologies.
we wrote:

Paul Younan Wrote:
gbausc Wrote:The "two qnomas of Christ" bothers me , because I cannot find it in The Peshitta.

Sure you can - you can even find it in the English. When Meshikha forgave sins, that was the Divine Qnoma. When He was tempted by Satan, that was the Human Qnoma.

Do you need it to explicitly say "Meshikha had two qnome, one Divine and one Human?" What we are talking about is the mystery of the Incarnation - something that is, essentially, ineffable.

I don't wish to split hairs with you. We've argued about this for 15 centuries.

Come now, Paul , we haven't argued quite that long yet ! <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Seriously, I should expect to find something more definitive in scripture, if only two verses- one stating Jesus has a human qnoma , and another somewhere stating He has a divine qnoma. Any verse that states He has two qnome (which, you must admit, is rather unusual), would clear this up.And given the uniqueness of this supposed phenomenon of two qnome in one Person, I should expect such a statement in scripture before I accept it as church doctrine.That would clinch the matter. As it is, there are no such statements.

I do not accept any division in Meshikha; Personally, I believe His Deity is human and His Humanity Divine- one nature , one qnoma , one person , and that those three are One ! (Talk about oneness !)
I find it strange that some (not yourself) believe in God's absolute unity (singularity,really) and yet put Yeshua Meshikha on a disection board and separate Him into 2 keyana , 2 qnome and a parsopa - 5 parts !

This kind of attitude should embarass anyone , at the very least, who claims to know, love and worship The LORD Meshikha. Personally, I find it impertinent and arrogant in the extreme. The gnostics engaged in "Christ splitting", dividing His human and Divine natures and going so far as to say that Yeshua was a mere man and The Meshikha was a Divine emanation who dwelt in Yeshua.

As you know, John wrote his major epistle to refute this heresy. "This is He that came through water and blood, Yeshua Meshikha" There was no part of Him untouched by the events of baptism and crucifixion.

Can Jehovah not suffer ? "They shall gaze upon Me Whom they have pierced..." , saith Jehovah.

Will God judge me for believing this ? Far be it ! I would rather fear that I should take part in piercing Him again by my ignorance and impassiveness toward His suffering.


[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb F0ygs[/font]

Dave B
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)