Hebrews 1:3

Shlama l'Kulkhon,

With our newfound understanding of the archaic meaning of Qnoma, let's now take a look at Hebrews 1:3 in the Aramaic of the Peshitta:

htwty0d 0mlcw hxbw4d 0xmc wywhd

"Who is the radiance of His glory, and a portrait of His essence...."

htlmd fyxb Lk dyx0w

"...and (who) upholds all (things) by the power of His Word...."

Nyh=xd 0ykwd db9 hmwnqb whw

"...and He, in his (human) Qnoma, had made purification of sins...."

0mwrmb Fwbrd 0nymy L9 Btyw

"...and (still in his human Qnoma) sat down at the right hand of majesty on high..."

It is widely known that the Semitic idiom "sitting at the right hand" is figurative and means that the person has found favor with whomever they are sitting to the right of.

Paul here paints a beautiful picture of the redemption of our human Qnoma. Our human Qnoma was broken after the fall of Adam and Eve. Christ, having taken a human Qnoma from us and having "put on a garment of flesh" (Hebrews 10:5, Peshitta) - has redeemed our human nature (Kyana) by His Qnoma - OUR Qnoma.

This is NOT God sitting to the right of God, nor is it a mere man sitting to the right of God. There is no "sitting" happening - it's a very common Semitic idiom.

What, exactly, is doing the figurative "sitting?" His human Qnoma (indistinguishable from our own) is now figuratively "seated at the right hand" - and WE are restored.

This is our hope and our salvation.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

I need help on the difference between 'qnoma' & 'hupostasis'.

You Wrote:
To us in the CoE - this word has never changed from its archaic meaning - "underlying substance/concrete nature" - and it never, ever means "person." The other groups altered the meaning of Qnoma to more closely resemble the Greek 'hypostasis' because of imperial and ecclesial pressure within the Byzantine court.

So the SOC Church understands 'Qnoma' as 'hupostasis'?

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Hupostasis
Definition
a)a setting or placing under
b)thing put under, substructure, foundation
c)hat which has foundation, is firm
d)that which has actual existence
e)a substance,
f)real being the substantial quality,nature, of a person or thing
g)the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
h)confidence, firm trust, assurance

It appears 'hupostasis- is the closest Greek term to translate 'Qnoma' as 'underlying substance' is at the root of the term. In fact this word is a compound word comprised of 'hupo'-'under'and 'stasis'-'existence'.
BAG Lexicon defines 'hupostasis' as:
substantial nature, essence,actual being, reality.

Please help me to distinguish the significant difference between the two terms. Keep in mind 'hupostasis' is never translated person.

Shlama,
Yaqub

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

You are correct - 'Hypostasis' had an archaic meaning similiar to 'Qnoma' at first, but that changed.

The term came to be used by Alexandria as the point of unity between the 2 natures. , i.e. "Person."

See https://www.brescia.edu/academic/courses/syllabus/wecfall00/rls110m201/charts.htm

and

https://www.atf.org.au/papers/glossary.asp (under 'Hypostatic Union')

and

https://www.christinyou.net/christology.html

Also, see the publications by Pro Oriente.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi Paul.

Thank you for patiently walking through this.
Would you say the qnoma is conscious?
Also, in Galatians, Paul says Yeshua gave his naphsha in place of our sins. Are you saying that naphsha and qnoma are directly linked (somehow interdependent?), because according to my understanding of what's been said, His (human) qnoma suffered and died (made purification for our sins -Heb 1:3)- which was also the death of His naphsha (Gal 1:4).

Is that anywhere close to what you're getting at?

According to the Torah, "ki nefesh ha-basar ba-dam" For the nephesh of the flesh is in the blood" - and the blood is what makes atonement.

I guess I'm trying to understand how you would relate naphsha and qnoma.

Thanks,
Rob

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Akhi Rob,

Napsha~Nefesh is totally unrelated to Qnoma. Qnoma is really something out on its own and has no Hebrew or Arabic cognate. Also, it has no parallel thought in the Tenakh. It is new revelation in the NT.

In fact, the term Qnoma is simply transliterated into Arabic as is - no modifications. This is frequently found in Christian Arabic literature - primarily that of the Lebanese Maronite tradition.

Napsha is best translated "conscious/self" and therefore is more closely related to Parsopa. Napsha is commonly used to denote a living, breathing and rational soul~Rukha~Ruakh.

Qnoma is just Qnoma. Like they did in Arabic, we should simply transliterate it into English and call it a new word, a new thought. That's the best approach, according to Prof. Brock of Oxford - and knowing both languages - I agree with him.

Here is a helpful list of the terms:

• Keyana ~ Nature
  
• Qnoma ~ Qnoma (no translating!)
  
• Parsopa/Api ~ Person/Face
  
• Napsha ~ Self/Conscious/Soul
  
• Rukha ~ Breath/Spirit
  

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #4
 
Here's a question then, Akhi Paul:

Understandng the extreme difficulties of conveying these terms in English, would it be fair to draw this parallel.

QNOMA, while having no direct equivalent, points to the rough phrasing of "underlying essence".

Therefore, when I have tried to explain the term, I have sometimes called it SPIRITUAL ATOMS, from which larger structures (ROKHA, NAPHSHA) are constructed.

This relates to the idea of PRE-CREATION, the times that God calls forth, shapes,etc at the spiritual level and then BREATHES life into them to make them physical.

Look at Genesis 1:3 and Psalm 33:6...it is through the WORD of God that things are made, so first God makes the WORD and then the WORD makes everything else.

So think of a dividing line between the spiritual and the physical. The spiritual exists inside God's mind; the physical is made when God speaks.

God has a KAYANA (a nature) that is Spirit, and that KAYANA has a QNOMA (an underlying essence).

Now, In Jeremiah 1:1-5 (and various other places) we are told that God knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was in the womb, that is to say in his PRE-CREATIVE state. So God has His QNOMA and God knows Jeremiah's (HUMAN) QNOMA before the prophet is born.

Now when Jeremiah is born, that QNOMA takes two distinct forms while remaining one QNOMA. The first would be the ROKHA, that breath from God that gives the spark of life. And the second would be the RESULT of that spark, the NAPHSHA, or life force.

It's just a question of which side of the SPIRTUAL-PHYSICAL dividing line we are talking about.

Or have I too, got this wrong somehow?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Akhi Andrew,

"Underlying Substance" is a good descriptive - but not a definition.

In ultra-technical language, another good descriptive sentence is this:

"A Qnoma is an individuated (though not necessarily self-existent), non-personalized instance of a Kyana (Nature.)"

When you examine the chart below, keep in mind that it should be read from top-to-bottom. A Qnoma is somewhere between an Abstract Nature (Kyana) and a real Invidual Person (Parsopa.)

It is this "middle level" that's missing from all other linguistic psyches (including other Semitic languages):

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #6
 
According to Mar Bawai the Great (6-7th centuries) in his "Book of the Union", the definition of Qnoma is as follows:

"A singular essence is called a `qnoma'. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one (numerically) among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome (only) by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its `parsopa'. With rational creatures this (uniqueness) may consist of various (external and internal) accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures (as also with the rational) the combination of various contrasting features. (Through the parsopa we distinguish that) Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole (but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.)."

Here Babai sets forth his understanding of qnoma as being a representative exemplar of a general species. It is the essence of a given nature in concrete, realized form. It is the essential substratum upon which a "parsopa" is based. It is nature undifferentiated in any way from exemplary qnome of the same nature except for number, but differentiated both in number and essence from exemplary qnome of other natures. This substratum of nature is further individualized only by the addition of accidents, phenomena which are not of the essence of a given nature, but which make it possible to distinguish one qnoma from another. Nature is general and descriptive: qnoma is specific and exemplary. When Babai speaks of Christ as "God and man", he insists on specificity: a divine qnoma (not the Holy Trinity) and a human qnoma (not mankind in general).

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 
>It is widely known that the
>Semitic idiom "sitting at the
>right hand" is figurative and
>means that the person has
>found favor with whomever they
>are sitting to the right
>of.

It's nice to see that some people recognize figures of speach.

>This is NOT God sitting to
>the right of God, nor
>is it a mere man
>sitting to the right of
>God. There is no
>"sitting" happening - it's a
>very common Semitic idiom.
>
>What, exactly, is doing the figurative
>"sitting?"

If I may, there is more to this. Actually there are TWO figures used here.

1) The "right side" is the side of "blessing", in contrast to the left side, which the side of "cursing". Many things are done with the right hand for this very reason. And many things would never be done with the left hand for the same reason.

2) The act of "sitting" or "resting" figuratively means that something is "finished" or "complete". eg.

Genesis 2:3
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had RESTED from all his work which God created and made.

God was not tired, He was Done.

Acts 2:3
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it SAT upon each of them.

They received the gift of holy spirit, completely.

When it says that Jesus SAT DOWN at the RIGHT HAND of God, it literally means that he finished his work, and that your redemption and mine was absolutely and totally COMPLETED.

Jesus ascended to heaven and is with God, his Father, and having totally completed what God asked him to do, Jesus was given a position of Blessing - God made him Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).

Agape,
Don

In reply to message #8
 
Shlama Akhay,

The "Right Hand" is also figurative speech denoting a position of power and authority!

-Dean