03-05-2013, 09:26 PM
Paul Younan Wrote:I hope so. You still didn't answer the question. $-y-n-) is unattested to in Galilean. It's purely "Syriac." That's the whole point. (your example of /zr( $lmh bynyhwn/ is irrelevant - $-l-m is a common lexeme in all Aramaic dialects).
The use by James of $-y-n-) is deliberate. How can that be so, if he was writing in Galilean ?
First (a straw man): My example was of the circumlocution /zr( $lm/ (which happens in Jewish dialects), not merely of /$lm/ (which is common in all dialects). It is established and I have demonstrated it. Do you have an example where /$yn/ is used in the fashion you insist upon elsewhere? So far, no.
Second (a non sequitur): Why would James originally used an obscure Syriac pun with when "peace" as simply "peace" works perfectly well in established idiom without any special explanation? There is no problem with the reading as it is that needs to be "fixed" or could be better explained by /$yn/.
An equally valid (and much more likely, imho) conclusion is that a Syriac scribe who was translating James' letter chose that word deliberately and that the Greek (and every other manuscript) is perfectly fine as it is. The question is not a matter of deliberateness, it's a matter of who is most likely to have made the choice. It's not its use by James it's its use in Peshitta James, alone.
Insisting it was Peter's choice without demonstrating that it could only be Peter's choice is nothing but proof by assertion, which is all you have here. Perhaps if the Greek used two separate words for "peace" (where the first "peace" meant "domestic" as opposed "wild" -- which is the essence of /$yn/ -- and missed the meaning of "cultivated land") you'd have the evidence.
Peter, being a Galilean (a fisherman by trade from Bethsaida; quite a long trek south from any Syriac speaking areas at the time), likely wouldn't have used /$yn/ as much as you or I would pun with the word "boot" referring to the trunk of a car, or "flat" referring to an apartment. Your argument, in its very essence, requires Peter to have used a shibboleth outside of his culture in a very specific manner in place of a phrase that is perfectly fine as it is. It's an argument against all likelihood.
Does not compute. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="" title="Cool" /><!-- s --> ++++++++++
Also here's another fun one to discuss about scribal choices from another angle... since we're getting off topic anyways. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Why does the Peshitta have /w)mr lh (br)yt rbwly dmt)mr mlpn)/ = "And Mary said to him in Hebrew, 'Rabbuli!' which is to say 'Teacher'" in John 20:16?
Rabbuli is not a Hebrew word from the period (in much later Hebrew it means "coxcomb" from a different etymology :-) ). It's a strictly Syriac word, unattested in any other dialect, that means "head shepherd" (sumus pastorum). It does not mean "teacher" like /mlpn/ does.
Every other New Testament text has /rbwny/ (Gk. /rabbouni/ Lat. /rabboni/) which is both Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic (Judean and Galilean; even in Samaritan) and does mean "teacher" (similar roots to "Rabbi").
Why does the Peshitta have a strictly Syriac word, call it Hebrew, and then proceed to mistranslate it?
It cannot be a matter of a Greek translator mis-reading a /l/ for a /n/, as the Peshitta -- not the Greek -- mislabels the word. :-)
++++++++++
Finally some housekeeping: Sorry about how long it has taken me to respond, I've been quite busy. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> I will eventually catch up with the rest of the comments. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->