|
#35, RE: splitting potatoes
Posted by jdrywood on Mar-21-2002 at 02:01 AM
In response to message #34
hello potatoe splitters, I’m still in the comparing mode using the traditional Greek text =KING JAMES Cambridge for comparison because nothing that I have read in the Peshitta disagrees with it for the most part. Yes there are some grey areas but by in large all the majority Greek texts that make up the textus receptus agree with one another (according to Scrivener only 119 minor differences). The GNT for Luke alone has over 1000 burps so forget GNT as a suitable authority unless your drunk. Now linguistics must be compared against itself in the same text. Ie. The Aramaic phrase in Luke 2:11 ‘the LORD Messiah’ 0xy4m 0yrm is similar to the construction for ‘the LORD God’ at 1:32 0hl0 0yrm without Roth’s copula invention. However a similar phrase with a prolitic at 9:20 ‘the Messiah of God’ 0hl0d hxy4m puts a different slant on the meaning that you do not have to know Aramaic to see the problem. All the Greek texts agree with the Peshitta except for the added intrepetation of MaR-Yah which you reason makes things clear. Well, it doesn’t. MaR-YaH before Messiah and God is only an appellative for titles expanded to the LORD YAH Messiah or the LORD YAH God so you are back to square one. The POT makes more sense of the titles of deity ‘the Lord God’. The Messiah OF God has the same construct as the Son OF God neither of which linguistically or by grammar mean ‘God the Messiah’ or ‘God the Son’. So your potato theory is a smoking straw man that the Peshitta itself burns up. Don’t criticize me for pointing this out, improve upon it if you can as a native speaking Aramaic. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
|