Luke 8:27 deadly spear in the Greek Dragon

8:27 And when he had disembarked onto land, he met one man from the province in whom a devil had been for a long time. And he did not wear clothes and did not dwell in a house but in the tombs.

�province� Aramaic: 0tnydm This is an ambiguous Aramaic word. Normally this word means �city� (as in the Talmud b.Ta�anit 19b & 21a)) as the Greek translator rendered it but in the Jewish Aramaic dialects it can also be used to mean �province� (as in the Talmud b.Meg. 13b & b.San. 92b). There are several clues that the word here means �province� and not �city�. The man did not dwell in a house but in the tombs because he had been driven into the wilderness (8:29). Anyone familiar with Jewish Law will quickly realize that tombs are ritually unclean were not found in the city. The fact that the man dwelt among them was intended to testify to the totality of his ritually impure state. Moreover an examination of the parallel synoptic accounts (Mt. 8:28 & Mk. 5:2) reveals that the true meaning of 0tnydm in this passage is �province� and the Greek translator mistranslated it as �city�.

Now as far as I know (and Paul correct me if I am wrong) this word always means "city" in the Syriac dialect. This makes this piece of evidence an especially deep spear! It points to the author of the Aramaic of Luke as expressed in the Peshitta (and/or Old Syriac in this case)
as being of Jewish origin and NOT just a Syrian/Assyrian composition! It lends great credibility to the idea that the text was BROUGHT to the Parthean Empire by the original Jewish followers of Yeshua!

Any thoughts?

Trimm

In reply to message #0
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on Jan-28-2002 at 10:36 AM (CT)

Shlama James,

Three things - Number one - it is more correct to translate "province" in Luke 8:27 instead of "city."

Number two - a little background for the people here on what you call "Syriac" (a Greek name for "Christian Aramaic.") "Syriac" (or, as we who speak it call it - "Aramaic") is no more or less Aramaic than the language of the Imperial empires of Assyria, Babylon and Persia - my ancestors. It is no more or less Aramaic than the language spoken by the Chaldean Babylonian Aramean Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Israel. It is no more or less Aramaic than the language of Palmyra, Hatra, Damascus, Babylon, Nineveh or the language of the Targums. It is no more or less Aramaic than the language of portions of Daniel.

It's a specific dialect which had wide usage at that time ranging from Babylon and Edessa all the way to Galilee and Jerusalem.

The language of the 22 New Testament books that were later called "Peshitta" is in this dialect that you term "Syriac", but which is a term that is offensive to me since it's a Greek term and we don't like to call our language by foreign terms.

I said all that to say this - the entire Peshitta is written in this dialect you call "Syriac" - therefore, if Mdintha is used in a primary text of what you call "Syriac" to mean province - then that should answer your question about how Mdintha is used in "Syriac."

Number three - all four of my grandparents emigrated here from Mdintha d'Hakkari - a map of which you can view here:

If you look at the map closely - you can see the name of the major city of the province, Hakkari - situated just to the top and right of the area called Selai.

As you can see - not only does Mdintha in our "Syriac" (as the Greeks call it) dialect mean "province" - it also is applied to areas of an entire mountain range in modern-day Turkey of which the main "city" is called Hakkari.

The best English translation of the Aramaic Mdintha is the general term - "area."

Incidentally, if anyone's interested - Mdintha in the Arabic language is pronounced "Medina" (as in "Mecca and Medina.")

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
Oh yes - I do agree that this is a deadly spear in the Greek dragon. :c

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 
Akhi James,

my translation does not write "from city", but "from the course of the city". So they can live out of city in the tombs. The context is the verse speak about witnesses, people and about a city, where the healed published the great things throughout the whole city. It seems for me, it is certain that there was a near city. What is your opinion?