Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Akhi Stephen...

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #566
Help Print Share

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

Akhi Stephen...

Jun-27-2001 at 12:31 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

I just read your post to Shmuel about Ephesians 2:15, and I'd like to start a new thread on this topic, similiar to the way we did the last example, with actual lessons about Aramaic grammar.

In the last example, we demonstrated how nouns are derived from verbal roots - well, at least one way - the Shaphel Lexeme Form, there are other Lexeme Forms:


  • APHEL
  • ETHP
  • ETHPAEL
  • ETHPALPAL
  • ETHPEAL
  • ETTAPHAL
  • P
  • PAEL
  • PALPEL
  • PEAL
  • SAPHEL

This time, I'd like to talk about how adjectives are created from verbal roots in Aramaic, but I'd especially like to talk about how to distinguish between verbs and adjectives in Aramaic.

What sayest thou?


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic
Stephen
 
Send email to StephenSend private message to StephenAdd Stephen to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

1. Aramaic Grammar-101

Jun-27-2001 at 01:27 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Stephen Silver wrote:
That's an excellent idea. I really appreciate your "teaching style". Anything that can shed more light on Ephesians 2:15, and can help us, to get a "working grasp" of Aramaic Grammar, would be very much appreciated.

Fkrwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

2. RE: Aramaic Grammar-101

Jun-27-2001 at 02:07 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Great!

This first post will simply explain, in English, some of the concepts I will talk about later in subsequent posts. Some of the points made here will be elementary to most of you, but to others whose strongest subject is not grammar, it may be helpful.

This way, I can avoid both long postings and putting everyone to sleep. So I will keep these posts lean and mean.

Verbs in English

So let's take an example here from English - let's say the English Verb "Paint."

A Derivated Noun

An English Noun that is derived from this Verb is "Painter."

So, to make a Noun out of "Paint" is to add an -er suffix to the end of the Verb, correct?

A Derivated Adjective

An English Adjective that is derived from this Verb is "Painted."

So, to make a Adjective out of "Paint" is to add an -ed suffix to the end of the Verb, correct?

Summary

In English, we can derive both Nouns and Adjectives from Verbs.

We can identify, by the Lexical Formations, all three parts of speech in the English.

A native speaker of English should never, in any way, confuse an Adjective with a Noun, or a Verb with an Adjective.

In Aramaic, it is much the same way. Nouns and Adjectives can be derived from Verbs.

We have already discussed, in the previous example, one of the ways in which Nouns are derived from Verbs in Aramaic (the Shaphel Lexeme Form.)

In the next post, I will demonstrate how Adjectives are derived from Verbs in Aramaic.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

3. How Adjectives are formed....

Jun-27-2001 at 04:46 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jun-27-2001 at 04:47 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Let us look at the Verb Brq

It has the following meanings:


  • Draw near
  • Bring near
  • Approach
  • Touch
  • Offer
  • Fight

Now, when we want to form an Adjective from this Verb, we would use the PAEL Lexeme Form (since this is a G-verb.)

The PAEL Lexeme Form uses the following pattern:

AXYiXaX

Where the A is an 0 , the Y is a Y , the i is a vowel "i", the a is a vowel "a."

So that we would get 0byrq as an adjective derived from the verbal root Brq.

You can see it in action using Word Number 19048, where the adjective means:


  • Near
  • At Hand
  • Neighbour

Which are all based off of the first group, or shade, of meaning.

So you see, that is how adjectives are formed in Aramaic, from verbal roots.

Next, we will analyze Ephesians 2:15 based on this grammar lesson.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

4. Questions....

Jun-27-2001 at 05:10 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

First off, I would like to announce a newly discovered bug in the program that the Lexicon uses. If you try and enter any special character (like $, =, +, left angle bracket, right angle bracket) into the search field, no results will be returned. This is because these are special HTML characters, and the browsers cannot interpret them in the URL line while searching the database. I'll try to fix it in the coming weeks, since these characters are used in our Estrangelo font quite extensively.

Anyway, on to the questions:


  • Using the Compendious Syriac Dictionary, what are the various meanings to the verbal root L=b
  • What is the form (spelling) it takes as an Adjective?
  • As used in Ephesians 2:15, is L=b a Verb or an Adjective?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Stephen
 
Send email to StephenSend private message to StephenAdd Stephen to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

5. RE: Questions....

Jun-27-2001 at 06:09 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Stephen Silver wrote:
According to "A Compendious Syriac Dictionary", on page 41, the word
L=b means:

L=b future,
L=by infinitive,
L=bm active participle,
Ly=b and Ly=b (mark over b), 0 , F

a)to cease work, be idle, at leisure; to come to an end, come to nought, fail; to be void, of no effect; to cease, especially with Nm from.

b)to take care of, attend to.

Ly=b void, obsolete, of no effect, unavailing, vain, unprofitable, idle, unoccupied, out of employment;
Ly=b 0y0m an empty vessel.

This seems to be the "bulk" of the definition, from the "Compendious".

Fkrwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

6. RE: Questions....

Jun-27-2001 at 06:19 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jun-27-2001 at 06:20 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

So, in Ephesians 2:15, it is not an Adjective at all, but the Verb itself (#2579), correct?

If it was being used as an Adjective, it would be spelled fy=b (#2533, Adjective, Emphatic tense) or Ly=b (Adjective, Absolute tense), as used in Matti 25:30 and Luke 17:10, correct?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

7. Ephesians 2:15

Jun-27-2001 at 09:44 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Since L=b is the 3rd Person, Masculine PAEL verbal form, which in English means "He annuled/abolished", and not "is abolished", the verse in question should be translated like this:


hrsbb Fwbbdl9bw (and enmity by His flesh)
Yhwndqwpb 0dqwpd 0swmnw (and the law of precepts by His command)
L=b (He annuled)
0rbn Jwhyrtld (that upon the both of them he might create)
hmwnqb (in His essence)
Fdx 04nrb dxl (one new man)
0ny4 db9w (and make serenity)

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

8. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-27-2001 at 10:53 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

The reason why I went into such detail to demonstrate that L=b is a Verb rather than an Adjective is because of another set of very rigid rules in Aramaic:


  • Verbs must agree in number with their subjects.
  • Adjectives must agree in number with their objects.

The statement was made that, since L=b was singular (which is true), then the only thing that is "annuled/abolished" is the "enmity."

That is not true. It is singular because it's subject (Maran Eshoa) is singular.

It is a Verb.

If it were an Adjective, fy=b , then yes, you are correct, it would have to agree in number with it's object(s).

The verse is saying, "both of them are annuled/abolished", and that is further reinforced by the Aramaic term for "both of them" being there - "d'l'Trayhon".

Anyone who speaks Aramaic (Jew, Christian or Muslim - Assyrian, Israeli or Arab) will verify this.

This is why it is extremely important that anyone who endeavors to translate Aramaic must know how to speak it.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

9. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-27-2001 at 11:36 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Paul,

I agree that it is a Pael verb and not an adjective. What I have said is that I view it as a passive verb rather than an active verb. This makes the Subject "enmity" and the verb "is abolished" and everything else is "dressing"

Thus:

And enmity (by his flesh and the Torah, because of commands in his commandments) is abolished.

Trimm

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

10. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-27-2001 at 11:44 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
Hmmm... however even if one took the verb as active it could also be:

And enmity (by his flesh and the Torah, because of commands in his commandments) he abolished.

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

12. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 10:21 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #10
 
Shlama Akhi James,

It cannot be translated that way, not in a million years... nor does it matter whether the verb is "Active" or "Passive" (it is neither, it is the Emphatic state of the PAEL "He abolished" - past tense)

I have highlighted in red why the reading cannot be as you have translated it:

hrsbb Fwbbdl9bw (and enmity by His flesh)

Yhwndqwpb 0dqwpd 0swmnw (and the law of precepts by His command)

L=b (He annuled)

0rbn Jwhyrtld (that upon the both of them he might create)

hmwnqb (in His essence)

Fdx 4nrb dxl (one new man)

Don't forget to translate the Proclitic w - it's very important here!


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

13. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 11:16 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #12
 
Paul,

I am surprised you are now taking this view. A few weeks ago when I posted this passage and my translation you endorced my rendering and said that you would have translated it just as I had.

You point to the word "both" as indicating two objects of the verb. In fact if you look at the context of this passage the "both" refers to Jews and Gentiles, NOT to enmity and the Torah.

Thus we have:

hrsbb Fwbbdl9bw
And enmity (by his flesh,

Yhwndqwpb 0dqwpd 0swmnw
and the Torah, because of commandments in his commands)

L=b
he abolished (or is abolished)


The text goes on to discuss how this abolishment of enmity brings abiout shalom and oneness between Jews and Gentiles.

This goes back to verse 14 which uses Aramaic lanugause right out of the Talmud to say that Yeshua "loosed the hedge" or permitted activities which a stricter halachic ruling had forbidden.

Verse 14 in the Aramaic has the phrase

0gys 9r4w
literally "loosed the hedge"

The word for "hedge" here is 0gys
which appears in Avot 1:1 and throughout the Talmuds to refer to traditions that were established as a "hedge about the Torah" to protect the Torah. These were not part of the Torah but had been established as a buffer zone. One set of these "hedge" rules involved rules forbidding Jews from coming in contact with Gentiles.

The word for "loosed" is 9r4 an Aramaic term used throughout the Talmuds to refer to the permitting or allowing of an activity. A forbidden act was said to be "bound" and a permitted act was said to be "loosed".

In this case Eph. 2:14 says that Yeshua "loosed the hedge" that stood in the midst of Jews and Gentiles. That is he permitted activities that the traditional "hedge" had forbidden pertaining to contact with Gentiles. He thus aboloshed enmity between the two by his flesh and the Torah (they are the same as the Torah is the "WOrd" and the WOrd became flesh) because of commandments in his commands. That is Yeshua's own example as well as the Torah itself (which teaches "Love your neighbor Lev. 19:18) Yeshua abolished enmity and allowed unity bewteen Jews and Gentiles that the hedge traditions had forbidden.

Trimm

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

14. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 11:19 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #13
 
There is a typo in the post above:

9r4w should be 0r4w

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

15. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 11:58 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #13
 
Shlama Akhi James,

The only comment I made on it was back on March 13th, according to a post by you on this forum in response to Dean Dana, where you pointed out our alleged agreement on this.

The fact is, I don't remember giving it the sweeping approval you claim that I did in you post on March 13th. And if I did, I was very badly mistaken.

It happened to have been the at same time we disagreed about "Shukhlapa" in Hebrews.

Regardless, the Dalet clause here is not best understood as "because of" here, where the word "Mittul" L=m would be far more appropriate.

The apostle Paul is saying 0dqwpd 0swmnw "And the law of precepts" here, he is qualifying which part of the "law" he means.

The "law of precepts" is what you are referring to as "hedges."

I'm not claiming that TORAH is abolished/annuled here - it's clearly NOT, but the "law of precepts" and "enmity" BOTH are.

Substitute in your mind "law of precepts" for Talmudic "hedges" - and everything will be ok.

The Aramaic is not attacking the Torah, not even talking about the Torah at all - at all.

You seem to immediately associate "namoosa" with Torah, even though an Aramaic speaker has confirmed to you a hundred times that the 2 are not necessarily synonymous.

If we say "namoosa", we could be talking about traffic laws in 21st-century America! It is a very general term, and we use it for all sorts of things!

Our "official" term for Torah (capital "T") is "Orayta."

Sometimes "namoosa" is used to mean "Torah" - but only in a general sense!!!!!!

I cannot make this any clearer. You don't need to alter Aramaic grammar here to protect Torah - it is not being attacked. The "hedges" ("law of precepts") is the one being attacked.

Any Aramaic speaker who would read "Namoosa d'Puqdeh" would realize that it's not Torah that's being addressed.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

16. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 12:18 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #15
 

Paul,

I have no problem with more than one possible rendering of this passage.

I am aware that ORITA is the actual cognate of TORAH linguisticly. However it is used in the Peshitta only three times (Mt 11:13; 12:5 and 22:40) (only appears in Matthew. Obviously by FAR the Peshitta NT uses the word NAMOSA for Torah more than ORITA and the Pauline portion LAWAYS does.

Also the Peshitta Tanak uses NAMOSA for Torah and I do not know of ANY place where it uses ORITA.

Although the Targums, Talmuds, and Zohar always use ORITA.

Trimm

PS: And then there are the ORITA french fries...

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

17. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 12:42 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Shlama Akhi James,

You are correct in that Namoosa is used far more often than Orayta.

But still, please keep in mind, that the word "namoosa" is general. Very general. It is not meant to be immediately and unconditionally equated with "Torah/Orayta."

Especially consider that Paul here is qualifying it by saying "Namoosa d'Puqdeh" (the law (lower-case "l" intentional) of precepts).

For the record, officially, I agree with your general conclusion that Orayta/Torah (capitalization intentional) is not being referred to here - and as far as I'm aware, the CoE has never understood it that way, and I'm not so sure the West has, either.

I stand by my original point, though, the phrase should be translated thus:

hrsbb Fwbbdl9bw (and enmity by His flesh)

Yhwndqwpb 0dqwpd 0swmnw (and the law of precepts (read: talmudic hedges/traditions) by His command)

L=b (He annuled)

0rbn Jwhyrtld (that upon the both of them he might create)

hmwnqb (in His essence)

Fdx 4nrb dxl (one new man)

0ny4 db9w (and make serenity)

And it should be understood, by all means, that by L=b Paul means "He annuled/abolished", and by Jwhyrt he is referring to both "Enmity" and "law of precepts/hedges of talmudic origin/traditions of men/fill in anything else but "Torah"/etc.)


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

18. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 12:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #17
 

Read the whole chapter for context.

Jwhyrtld "both of them" refers NOT to the ENMITY and the NAMOSA at all.

It refers to a bringing together of BOTH Jews and Gentiles into a single Body of Messiah.

ENMITY (which is derived here in the Aramaic from Ba'al D'bub (Aramaic for Ba'al Zebub)is NOT JOINED TO ANYTHING to make it part of the Body of Messiah.

Trimm


Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

19. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 12:59 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #18
 
You are correct, I was just looking at that verse. The context would dictate that by "trayhon", Paul does indeed mean Jews and Gentiles.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

20. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 01:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #19
 
OK so if Jwhyrtld "both of them" does not imply two objects, and since the DALET CLAUSE is very likely the most ambiguous prepositional clase in the Aramaic language, (carrying a wide array of potential meanings such as: of; because; because of; which; that; that which; who; who that etc. Or even indicating the construct case (linking two nouns together so that one servs to modify the other as if an adjective; unlike Hebrew which uses the definite artical Ha- for the construct case) And since Paul always uses NAMOSA for "Torah" (though he also uses it in other ways as well) can you at least agree that the passage COULD be understood to say:

And enmity (by his flesh and the Torah, because of commandments in his commands) he abloshed.

Trimm

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

21. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 01:51 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #20
 

I know the grammer may look odd to you but the Talmud is just FULL of nested parentheicals.

Trimm

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

23. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 03:12 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #21
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jun-28-2001 at 03:22 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi James,

If the Aramaic read this way, then it could be translated as you have proposed:

0swmnbw hrsbb Fwbbdl9b L=bw (And he abolished the enmity with his flesh and with Torah)

Yhwndqwpbd 0dqwpd L=m (because of the commandments that are in his commands)

As you can see, it reads totally different in the Aramaic.

He wouldn't just say 0swmnw ("And Namoosa") - that sounds horrible in Aramaic.

He would say 0swmnbw (And with Namoosa) - that's proper Aramaic. Just like he says hrsbb (with his flesh)

So another problem with the interpretation is that the text is missing the "Beth" Clause (Proclitic) to convey the "and with the law" idea.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

24. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 04:56 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #23
 

You are correct that as a ruke in Hebrew and Aramaic nouns in a series all take the preposition that governs them, however I am also sure I can find other exceptions.

As for the DALET clause I can show MANY cases where it means "because of"

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree

Trimm

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

25. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 07:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #24
 
Shlama Akhi James,

You will find example of the Daleth Proclitic/Clause being translated as "because of" in the Interlinear version on this website.

I well aware of that fact, having used it in daily speech myself.

I'm just saying "b'bisreh w'namoosa" is awkward Aramaic. It's more appropriate to say "b'bisreh w'b'namoosa."

In English it is quite alright to say "By his flesh and the Torah" - but that doesn't come out right in Aramaic, where the grammatical usage dictates that the objects of a verb are indicated by identical prepositions.

I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, I'm saying it's totally incomprehensible to say that in Aramaic, in that way.

Might as I be well in English talking this like(I might as well be talking like this in English) - since that's about how clear that would sound to an Aramaic listener.

We can agree to disagree - but I highly recommend you ask as many people who know the language (preferably, speak it as well) as possible - without any prior explanation - and see what they say.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

22. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 02:21 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #20
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jun-28-2001 at 03:27 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi James,

No, I still cannot agree with that rendering.

I agree that, most of the time, Paul uses Namoosa (without further qualification) to mean "Torah", but it is evident in this case that by "Namoosa d'Puqdeh" he means "law of precepts" and not "Orayta."

If I were saying "because of commandments in his commands", I would say:

Ywhndqwpb 0ndwp L=m

It is clear here that the "Dalet" Proclitic translates to "of", clarifying the previous "namoosa", and further reinforcing the idea of the "traditions/hedges" idea that separated Jews and Gentiles.

My argument did not hinge on the "Trayhon" argument - that was secondary.

The fact is that L=b is a Verb (3rd-person masculine Emphatic PAEL perfect, "He abolished"), and not an Adjective, also that it is singular would be expected, since it's subject is singular (not it's objects, which would be expected of an Adjective.)

Therefore, the only way to understand this verse is to say that:

"He annuled by his flesh the enmity, and by his command the law of precepts...."

Any other way of interpreting it is really mangling the Aramaic to the point of incomprehension.

Don't trust me - ask:


  • Dr. Saadi, University of Chicago (Iamsaadi@aol.com) (native speaker)
  • Prof. Kathleen McVey, Princeton Theological Seminary
  • Dr. Sebastian Brock, University of Oxford
  • Dr. Chip Coakley, Harvard University
  • Prof. Joseph Ammar, Notre Dame University (native speaker)
  • Dr. George Kiraz, University of Oxford, (gkiraz@bethmardutho.org) (native speaker)

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

11. RE: Ephesians 2:15

Jun-28-2001 at 09:51 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Jun-28-2001 at 10:00 AM (CT)

Shlama Akhi James,

The subject cannot be "enmity", since "enmity" does not "abolish" anything. Remember, the "subject" of the verb is the one performing the action, the "object" of the verb is the one receiving the action.

The subject of the verb is Maran Eshoa.

If "enmity" is performing the action, it cannot be the object of the action.

Firstly, "activity" or "passitivity" has nothing to do with number in Aramaic.

Secondly, please explain to me how a verb that is passive ("is abolished") should be inflected. Please give the name of the Lexical Form as well as the pattern that it uses.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service