Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke 24:1
#31
Shlama Akhi Paul,

First of all thank you for responding to my question, I will at some point discuss with you a possible impact that your answer has on the primacy of aramaic.

I know you are eager to here my answer, but before I start I want you to understand that pushing my belief on your forum was never my intention, if anything I wanted highlight that I believe you have made a mistake in your translation, this might sound odd given that you are supposed to be the Aramaic " has been, drip under pressure" ( ex-pert- get it <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ). However, my understanding is based in the greek manuscripts of which my understanding is significantly greater than my understanding of aramaic. As far as I'm concerned the dury is still out regarding the primacy of the aramaic, you make a very stong case and I may yet be convinced , however my perceived inconsistency in your translation is not helping.


Ok so we'll start with the account of Paul's trip from Philippi to Troas. First, let's look at the text as it's normally translated from the greek, followed by a literal translation:

ACTS 20:6 But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days. 7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. (NKJV)
Verse 6 tells us that these events took place immediately after the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A literal translation of verse 7 is somewhat different than what most English versions record:

ACTS 20:7 Now on one of the Sabbaths, at our having gathered to break bread, Paul argued with them, being about to be off on the morrow. Besides, he prolonged the word unto midnight. (CLNT)

Act 20:7 ??????? [on]????? [And] ????? [the] ??????? [one]??????? [ of the]???????????????? [Sabbaths]????????????????????[being assembled] ??????? [ of the]??????????????? [disciples]???????????? [to break] ???????????[bread], ??? ????????????? [Paul]?????????????????? [was discussing] ??????????????[with them], ???????????? [being about to]???????????????[depart] ????? [the]????????????????? [ nextday], ??????????????????[he extended] ???? [and]???????[the] ??????????[message] ?????????? [until]??????????????????????[midnight].

When we examine verse 7 in the Greek, we see that the text again literally says "one of the Sabbaths," not "first day of the week."

Luke tells us that Paul and his colleagues arrived in Troas at least five days after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and that they stayed in Troas for seven days. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem to observe the feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16). With an understanding of the Sabbath count to Pentecost (Lev. 23:15-16), it's clear that ??????? ??????? ???????????????? here indicates that Paul spent one of the seven weekly Sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost with the brethren in Troas. There is no significance to be found for Sunday in this passage.
( Try as you might you will not find this by googling Act 20:5-7)



For completeness I will also examine the 16th chapter of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which was also the target of your sarcastic wit.

I CORINTHIANS 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. (NKJV)
Is Paul speaking of a weekly collection to be set aside by the Corinthians every Sunday so a sufficient amount would be available when he arrived? Or is it possible that Paul had something else in mind?

The key to understanding this whole passage is the Greek word which begins verse 2. Thayer says is: "a preposition denoting motion or diffusion or direction from the higher to the lower . . ."

This word is frequently rendered "after" by Greek translators ("down from" = "after"). Let's look at the difference it would make to translate this word as "after" instead of "on" in this verse, as well as rendering as "one of the Sabbaths":

"On the first day of the week" ??? becomes ??? "After one of the Sabbaths"

Here is a literal rendering of the first two verses of I Corinthians 16:

I CORINTHIANS 16:1 Now concerning the collection that is for the saints, as I directed to the churches of Galatia, so also you do. 2 After one of the Sabbaths, let each one of you beside himself put something aside, storing up whatever he may have prospered, in order that when I come then collections may not be made; (literal translation)

1Co 16:1 ????????? [concerning] ?????[now] ??????? [the] ?????????????? [collection] ??????? [the one]??????? [for]????????? [the]?????????????[saints], ???????????[as] ??????????????[I directed] ????????? [to the]?????????????????????[churches] ??????? [the ones]???????????????? [of Galatia]?????????[so] ??????? [also]????????????[you] ????????????????[do].
1Co 16:2 ????????? [After]???????? [one of] ???????????????? [the Sabbaths]??????????????? [each]?????????? [of you]????????? [beside]????????????[himself]???????????? [let put something]???????????????????? [storing up] ??? [what]????[something] ???????? [-]??????????????????[he may prosper], ??????? [in order that]?????[not]?????????[when] ?????????[icome] ???????? [then]??????????????? [collections]????????????????[there may be].
We know that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were important to the context of Paul's instructions to the Corinthians (I Cor. 5:7-8). It is likely that Paul wrote this epistle just before the arrival of the spring Holy Days. If that was indeed the time frame of the letter, then Paul's encouragement to begin gathering a collection "after one of the Sabbaths" would have been intended to clearly tell the Corinthians WHEN to begin their offering so they would have it completed by the time Paul arrived. Once again, the most logical view of this Scripture does not include a recognition of Sunday.

CONCLUSION
If the Greek is a translation from the Aramaic, why then do we not see in the Greek translation
the greek word for "FIRST??? PROTOS ,the greek word for "DAY" in Greek is HEMERA and the greek word for ???Week??? hebdomads, if first day of the week is correct rendering from the Aramaic.
The Greek word sabbaton is used in the New Testament 68 times. FIFTY-NINE times it is translated SABBATH, but NINE times the very same word is ARBITRARILY translated "first day of the week."

Of these nine times, 6 times are in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, 2 refer to (purportedly religious) meetings that were held ( as previously discussed) and 1 refers to an incident of fasting. (who made the ruling that "fasting" must be a full 24 hours? Why can't "fasting" refer to skipping an individual meal or two?

Finally, almost the entire Christian world celebrates Sunday as their day of worship in place of the 7th-day Sabbath God instituted at creation (Gen. 2:2-3). They justify doing this because they believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead on this day. However, as our brief study has shown, the Greek text overwhelmingly supports another set of facts.

Shabbat Shalom

Claud.
#32
Shlama Akhi Claud,

Thank you for the attempt, noble as it was, however you did not answer any of the questions in my post. You attempt to answer my questions about Aramaic, by giving me examples based on your understanding of the Greek?

I'm going to give you one more opportunity to answer my question, which requires you to explain the Aramaic - not the Greek. I took time to answer your question in Aramaic, don't answer my question in Greek. If you do not answer my questions below directly, but choose to dance around in Greek, then don't expect any answers to your questions from me in the future. You will have then utterly wasted my time. You might as well go and start your own forum at that point.

Question one: Which Khad b-Shabba is being referred to in Acts 20:5-7? In Aramaic, please.

Is this the "First of Sabbaths", nearly 3 weeks after the Passover, that you proposed earlier in the thread.

Focus. A simple yes or no, or 2-3 sentences will suffice. Don't cut and paste from Google searches.

Which Khad b-Shabba is being referred to in Acts 20:5-7 ?

Question 2: In 1Cor. 16:2, Paul instructs them "every" ("kul") Khad b-Shabba. How does this fit in with the once-a-year scenario, verses their weekly gatherings?

Question 3: In Aramaic, to say "One of the Sabbaths" (as you are proposing for your Greek rendering on Acts 20:5-7), would be "Khad men Shawathe" (one of the Sabbaths). This is spelled very differently from "Khad b-Shabba". Firstly, there is no Beth Proclitic, secondly there is an extra particle "men", thirdly the word "Shabba" (week) would have to be changed to "Shabtha" (Sabbath), and instead of singular it would need to be in the plural...."Shawathe" (Sabbaths).

Please elaborate. I'm afraid your theology and dogmatic predisposition will require you to remain a Greek primacist. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#33
Shlama Akhi Paul,

I did answer your question, but it was not on your terms, I simply did not fall into the trap of responding to your ???straw man??? misrepresentation of my argument .
"Is this the "First of Sabbaths", nearly 3 weeks after the Passover, that you proposed earlier in the thread." what sort idiotic statement is this! you clearly trying unsuccessfully attribute something to me that I never said, If you look back at the selective quote you used, it said. ???Thus, there was an annual date known as "First Sabbath," just after Passover, it is clear even from this selective quote that first Sabbath is just after passover. If you were being fair to me you should have quoted the whole passage to give the proper context to your readers as below.
???Seven sabbaths were to be counted from the Feast of First-fruits or Passover. Consequently, these came to be known as "First Sabbath," "Second Sabbath" etc., down to the seventh. And according to Julian Morgenstern, former President of Hebrew University, this practice continued in Galilee till the time of Christ or the Common Era. It is still observed by some groups in Palestine today. Thus, there was an annual date known as "First Sabbath," just after Passover. (p. 230, The Life of Christ in Stereo).???



Question one: Which Khad b-Shabba is being referred to in Acts 20:5-7? In Aramaic, please. Answer: No Khad b-Shabba is being referred to in Acts 20:5-7.Explanation
Firstly, the transliteration Khad b-Shabba, according to you means first of the week i.e. Sunday. I would contend that what is actually being refered is one of the Sabbaths counted from the Feast of first fruits you can have up to Seven!
Secondly, I contend that the Khad b-Shabba was not used or even understood as you understand it at the time of Jesus and the Apostles. I have given examples of what I believe was said at the time. If you can prove otherwise then I may be open to persuasion.
Thirdly, if Khad b-Shabba was in the text I would expect to see ???????????????????????????? as one word as shown in the Dukhrana Analytical Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament. What is actually shown in place of Khad b-Shabba is [day] ????????????????????[one] ??????????[sabbath]???????????????? ??



Fourthly, Despite your noble attempt to explain Khad b-Shabba . I have 4 issues stated below your explanation.
Here is the explanation, in detail:

The word, Ekhad~Khad (Hebrew~Aramaic) is a number. It literally means "one", or figuratively "first".

The word, Shavua~Shaba (Hebrew~Aramaic) is a number. It literally means "seven", or figuratively "week".

In Luke 24:1, The Beth Proclitic, ??, is prepended to both of the words above. The Beth Proclitic, can be used to mean the following:

* on
* in
* of
* by
* through
* with

The translation of b-Khad, therefore, is "on the first".

The translation of b-Shaba, therefore, is "of the week".

The literal name for Sunday, in Aramaic, is "Khad b'Shaba" (first of the week)

The only difference between the Aramaic name for Sunday, "Khad b'Shaba", and Luke 24:1, is a tiny little intsy-wintsy Beth Proclitic before the name of the day.......meaning, instead of "Sunday"....a whoppingly, surprisingly, shockingly different......(drum roll) ...... "ON Sunday."

1) Can you explain to me why ?????????????????? shaba aramaic number seven)
Is not present in the text of Luke 24:1 or for that matter MATTHEW 28:1, MARK 16:2,John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7, 1Corinthians 16:2 .

2)What mechanism with Aramaic gives you the licence to change ???one??? ???? to first ??????????????
3)What biblical evidence do you have that "week" means Sabbath? And before you rush to tell me Leviticus 23:15 everybody knows that there are seven days between one sabbath and another, but this does not mean a Sabbath means a week, it simply means there seven days between Sabbaths.
(I hope that wasn???t too FBI for you.)

Question 2: In 1Cor. 16:2, Paul instructs them "every" ("kul") Khad b-Shabba. How does this fit in with the once-a-year scenario, verses their weekly gatherings? Answer: The ???kul??? ???every??? refers to persons present rather than time or event. This can be clearly be seen in Dr. John Wesley Etheridge translation from the peshitta despite the fact he renders Sabbath as first day of the week.
1Corinthians 16:2 On each first day of the week let every one of you at his own house lay by and keep something of that which cometh unto his hands, lest when I come there be then collections.


Question 3: In Aramaic, to say "One of the Sabbaths" (as you are proposing for your Greek rendering on Acts 20:5-7), would be "Khad men Shawathe" (one of the Sabbaths). This is spelled very differently from "Khad b-Shabba". Firstly, there is no Beth Proclitic, secondly there is an extra particle "men", thirdly the word "Shabba" (week) would have to be changed to "Shabtha" (Sabbath), and instead of singular it would need to be in the plural...."Shawathe" (Sabbaths). Please elaborate Answer: What is literally shown in Acts 20:5-7 is day] ????????????????????[one] ??????????[sabbath]???????????????? , day one Sabbath, one Sabbath day I,m not exactly sure how it should be rendered. One of the Sabbaths is from the Greek. Clearly if the Greek was translated from the Aramaic there seems to be significant divergence. I am not really with you on the Shabba and shabtha issue both words mean Sabbath but are separate inflected forms, that???s not my opinion that is what the Dukhrana Analytical Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament says.
However, you do raise an interesting point, the extra participle ???men??? which you seem to suggest signifies ???of the???, is not present in ??? Khad b- shabba??? which you claim s first day of the week, why would this be?

You accuse me of being dogmatic I could equally say the same thing about you. Ultimately, what is of importance to me is not whether the Aramaic has primacy or whether the Greek has primacy, it is knowing and understanding the word of God. I believe we are all called to be Bereans, that is to say we should search the scriptures daily to see if what people are preaching or teaching is so. At this moment in time I clearly have a view which is opposed to you in the area of the resurrection, this does not mean that I do not have respect for your view point, as a matter of fact for most of Christian life I have believed exactly as you have on this topic and the view point that have now reached was not taken lightly. I am sure there may be many areas on which we have agreement. I do not claim to know everything I could be wrong and you could be right or vice versa. Knowing which day our Messiah was raised from the dead is not central to our salvation, however accepting his sacrifice for our sin is. I say this because all my questions are not about trying to score points or make anybody look bad or to hold an audience captive , for me it is all about the pursuit of the truth, I am well aware that I will probably not know the whole truth until by Jahweh???s grace I make into the kingdom, until then I am going to keep on searching.


You might say to yourself , ???Na, I don???t buy it???, that would certainly be your prerogative, but ask yourself the question, why I am still here, why have I taken the time to answer your questions.
Shlama w???burkate
Claud.
#34
...

Brother Claud,

Do you have all this spelled out somewhere that I might look it over? Perhaps a website or text document.

I have wrestled with this 3 days and 3 nights "Sign" for a long time. I went over some of this in a post here called the 'Sign of Jonah'. I could not make it work out.... but it looks to me that if you look at all the particular statements of the events surrounding the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Y'shua, it looks like it was from Friday 3pm that He died and that it was sometime between Sundown Saturday to just before the dawn on Sunday morning. I know that this is way short of a complete 3-day and 3-night event, but as I read through Tatian's Diatessaron where he merged the four gospel narratives into one from the Syriac, it looks like this is all the time that could have transpired...

I would like to look over your full view to see what you are proposing.

Thanks

...
#35
Shlama Akhi Thirdwoe,

Thank you for your enquiry, however if you have been reading through the thread of this post you will be aware that I am being accused, of promoting my views and given that idea of the forum is to discuss the aramaic primacy, I do not wish to further anger Paul Younan and risk complete termination, by supplying you with any information on this forum.

The difference of opinion that I have with Paul is merely one of translation, it does however impact if someone has a theological axe to grind. I am trying to steer the discussion away from this and to focus purely on his translation on how this may or may not affect the primacy of the aramaic.

You are of course free to email me at <!-- e --><a href="mailto:claud.blackwood@hotmail.com">claud.blackwood@hotmail.com</a><!-- e -->, where from there we can correspond freely.

Shlama w???burkate
Claud.
#36
...

Yes, that is why I asked if you have a website or a text document that I could read...not post it all here.

I have found brother Paul to be slow to wrath.

I will email thee.

Live long and prosper.... as thy soul prospers.

...
#37
Shlama Akhi Claud:
I'm going to delete this entire topic within 24 hours. If any of the other moderators have objections or even reservations just send me a private message and we can discuss it. This thread has little relevance to Aramaic Primacy. It's not even a good 72 hour/literal three days and three nights Jonah argument. The jury's still out over 72 hours vis-a-vis partial days and nights. There simply is not enough evidence either way and you can't reinterpret the Aramaic to make it fit.
Claud, no one wants to ban you from the forum. All we are looking for is a little respect. Graciously accept the fact that Paul Younan's mother tongue is Aramaic and that he has a perfect grasp of English as well. Together we all enjoy great freedom here to share our discoveries from the New Testament Peshitta.

Again, I am going to delete this topic within 24 hours unless another moderator has any reservation whatsoever. The topic The Sign of Jonah begun by Thirdwoe on Sat Nov 01, 2008 is a good place to start when trying to wrap your head around the entire subject of a "literal" vis-a-vis an "idiomatic" interpretation. I suggest that you read that topic in its entirety, Akhi Claud.

Shlama,
Stephen
(forum moderator)
#38
Stephen:

Clearly I cannot stop you deleting the topic, but even you conceded there is some degree of relevance to the Aramaic Primacy, by the fact that you said there is little relevance.

"It's not even a good 72 hour/literal three days and three nights Jonah argument." I never once mentioned 72 hours so I really have no idea why you feel the need to bring this up. 3 days and 3 nights does not have to be 72 hours, this would be a maximum. According to the Jewish practice of counting parts of a day or night as a whole, "three days and three nights" at a minimum has to include two full days, two full nights, and at least portions of another day and another night. to be considered "three days and three nights". therefore it could be as little as 48hours + fractions of another day and night.

I am not trying to reinterpret the Aramiac, I admit my understanding of aramaic is little, however I do know how to use a lexicon, and what it tells me flys in the face of what you and Paul have said. I have asked both you to explain, I got nothing from you, and I was met with a wall of Sarcasm from Paul, even now he still has not responded the issues I raised most recently about the transliteration Khad b-Shabba.

I respect both you and Paul, but somehow I do not think this is reciprocated, or else the topic I started would not be facing impending deletion.

If you say Aramaic is Paul Younan's mother tongue, who am I object and indeed I do not. Also the evidence is clear from the posts on this topic by Paul that he has the perfect grasp of english, I cannot understand why you feel it necessary to mention any of this.

The only thing I would say is that the Aramaic spoken today is not the same the Aramaic spoken a 1000 years ago, never mind 2000 years ago! This is the whole nub of my argument which both of you have seemingly not understood or refused to accept. You only have to look at english over the last 500 years to see how much that has changed, and in linguistic terms english to aramaic is a mere infant.


So long and farewell,

Claud.
#39
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Since the thread does deal with Aramaic, despite its heavy dogmatic undertone, I would keep it active. Unless you disagree, please do not delete.

Akhi Claud,

You asked:

Quote:However, you do raise an interesting point, the extra participle ???men??? which you seem to suggest signifies ???of the???, is not present in ??? Khad b- shabba??? which you claim s first day of the week, why would this be?

That's because in Aramaic, unlike English, there are two ways to say "of." Follow me here because you need to see the distinction to see why this doesn't work in Aramaic:

Khad b- Shabba (first of the Week)
Khad men Shawathe (one of the Sabbaths)

Even though the Khad remains the same, if the contextual meaning of Khad is "first of" something, in the sense of order, then it is followed by a Beth ("b-") Proclitic. Here are some other examples:

Khad b-Shate (first of the hours)
Khad b-Shlikhe (first of the Apostles)

If the contextual meaning is "one of ....(many,several,etc)", as opposed to the very first, then rather than being followed by a Beth Proclitic, it is followed by a "men", here are some examples:

Khad men Malke d'Ashur (one of the Kings of Assyria)
Khad men Yome d'Eida (one of the days of the holiday)
Khad men Bethwathe b'qreetha (one of the houses in the village)

If you are proposing the meaning of "Khad b-Shabba" to mean "One of the Sabbaths", then that does not work because it makes absolutely no sense in Aramaic and to be brutally honest with you if you were to show up to a gathering of Aramaic speakers and talk like that they would laugh at you. I don't think you realize how silly this sounds.

If you are proposing the meaning of "Khad b-Shabba" to mean "First of the Sabbaths", that would not violate the rules explained above, however it would break another rule in an equally ridiculous way. The "Shabba" is not in the plural form, "Shawathe."

Do you know why the Hebrew word for "weeks" (plural) is "Shavuot?" Their name for "week" (singular) is "Shavua". See the pattern? "Shavua~Shabba" .... "Shavuot~Shawathe"....notice how in each language, the singular is without a Taw....but the plural contains it? Why do you think that is?

Quote:Thirdly, if Khad b-Shabba was in the text I would expect to see ???????????????????????????? as one word as shown in the Dukhrana Analytical Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament.

That's utterly ridiculous, and can only come from someone who doesn't understand Aramaic at all. There are many examples, too many to list, that are exactly the same and can appear as one word or broken out into multiple words. Bar Nasha vs. Barnasha, etc.

It's as if someone told you "have not" and "haven't" aren't the same thing in English, they don't (or, do not) mean the same thing....otherwise you would not find them in Webster's under different entries. How silly would that be?

Quote:1) Can you explain to me why ?????????????????? shaba aramaic number seven)
Is not present in the text of Luke 24:1 or for that matter MATTHEW 28:1, MARK 16:2,John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7, 1Corinthians 16:2 .

In Matthew 28:1, John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7 and 1Cor. 16:2 the word used is "Khad b-Shabba", "first of the week".....what's your point? Can you actually read the Aramaic, or are you just wasting my time?

Quote:2)What mechanism with Aramaic gives you the licence to change ???one??? ???? to first ??????????????

What? Are you drunk, or something? Seriously dude. I don't know why I'm wasting my time here but you are so pathetically uneducated on this topic, this is funny. Who changed Khad to Qadmaya? Why does that matter?

In English, don't you have multiple ways of saying the same thing...."first?"

How about these examples in English:

(a) Rule One
(b) The Primary Rule
© The First Rule
(d) The Foremost Rule
(e) The Preeminent Rule

Why does the fact that Aramaic has multiple ways of saying "first", or multiple ways to count the number of the days of the week, surprise you? Why can't you say "day two" instead of Monday, or "the day after Sunday"....., or "2 of seven", or "6 days before Sunday?"

Quote:3)What biblical evidence do you have that "week" means Sabbath? And before you rush to tell me Leviticus 23:15 everybody knows that there are seven days between one sabbath and another, but this does not mean a Sabbath means a week, it simply means there seven days between Sabbaths.
(I hope that wasn???t too FBI for you.)

Trust me dude, nothing you can write is too "FBI" for me. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Why don't you go and ask any Jew what "Shavuah Tov" means, ok?

Quote:Question 2: In 1Cor. 16:2, Paul instructs them "every" ("kul") Khad b-Shabba. How does this fit in with the once-a-year scenario, verses their weekly gatherings? Answer: The ???kul??? ???every??? refers to persons present rather than time or event. This can be clearly be seen in Dr. John Wesley Etheridge translation from the peshitta despite the fact he renders Sabbath as first day of the week.

That's impossible because the word "Kul" appears right before the noun which it acts upon, which is "khad b'shabba". Etheridge translated "kul"as "each"....which is the same thing in English as "every", are you sure you even understand English? Or, since your name is Claud, are you a Frenchman or something?

Quote:What is literally shown in Acts 20:5-7 is day] ????????????????????[one] ??????????[sabbath]???????????????? , day one Sabbath, one Sabbath day I,m not exactly sure how it should be rendered.

No, you are not only unsure of how it should be rendered....you are totally clueless as to how it should be rendered, and that is precisely why I stated in my response to Stephen that you were trying to push a square peg into a round hole. At least you've finally come around to admitting it.

Additionally, due to your dogmatic predisposition, you are unwilling to even understand Aramaic unless you can make it suit your needs. That is exactly what you accused me of.

Again, I repeat my question to you which you still have not answered:

Which "First among Sabbaths", or "One of the Sabbaths" was being referred to in Acts 20:7 ?

It can't be the same one as Luke 24:1, can it? The timeline of Luke 24:1 is much earlier in the Hebrew calendar than Acts 20:7, which was 3-4 weeks from the Passover.

Now either explain, or go start a Greek forum where you can teach people who actually speak Greek how they got the names of the days of their week all messed up! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#40
Akhi Claud,

Another thing you don't understand, apparently. Sunday is not the only day of the week we call "(number) of the week"....or "(number) of seven"

Sunday - "Khad b'Shabba" (one~first of seven~week)
Monday - "Treyn b'Shabba" (two~second of seven~week)
Tuesday - "Tlatha b'Shabba" (three-third of seven~week)
Wednesday - "Arba b-Shabba" (four~fourth of seven~week)
Thursday - "Khamesha b-Shabba" (five-fifth of seven~week)
Friday - "Shtaa b'Shabba" (six~sixth of seven~week) (we call this day "Arubta", "preparation")
Saturday - "Shabba b'Shaba" (seven~seventh of seven~week) (we call this day "Shabtha", "Sabbath")

The "Shabba" there in those weekday names have nothing to do, etymologically, with the word "Sabbath" which in Aramaic is "Shabtha". "Shabba" means "seven" and "week."

There are many names we can use for the days of the week:

Yoma Qadmaya - "first day"
Yoma Treyana - "second day"
Yoma Tlathaya - "third day"
Yoma Arbaya - "fourth day"
Yoma Khamshaya - "fifth day"
Yoma Shtaya - "sixth day"
Yoma Shawaya - "seventh day"

Just because some Targumist chose different language for the days of the week, it's not a big deal. Just as in English, there are many ways in Aramaic to say the same thing.

What doesn't work, what is impossible, is to render "Khad b-Shabba" to mean "the first sabbath", "sabbath one", "one of the sabbaths" or any such nonsense. It doesn't work grammatically.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#41
Shlama Akhi Stephen,
Quote:Since the thread does deal with Aramaic, despite its heavy dogmatic undertone, I would keep it active. Unless you disagree, please do not delete.

Shlama Akhi Paul:
No problem at all. The topic will surely stand. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama,
Stephen
#42
Shlama Akhi Paul,

OK , I will accept what you say about the extra participle ???men???, you have explained it well, and it seems to make sense.

However, the reason why I raised the issue was because when you use the Dukhrana Analytical Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament to search for the English word Sabbath, then you look at all the inflected forms one of the inflected forms is

b$b` - ????????
ID Category Lexeme Root Meaning Origin Peshitta NT

20618 Noun $bt` ???????? $bt` ???????? Sabbath - show verses


Word Morphological information Suffix information
Vocalised Syriac Person Gender Number State Tense Form Enclitic Person Gender Number
b'$ab'a` ???????????????? - Feminine Singular Emphatic - - No - - -

when you check the verses the word turns up in they are as below,
Peshitta verses that contains ????????????????
Matthew 28:1 - ???????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ??
Mark 16:2 - ?????????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??
Mark 16:9 - ?????????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??
Luke 24:1 - ???????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ???????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????????? ??
John 20:1 - ???????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ???????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ??
John 20:19 - ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ??
Acts 20:7 - ???????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ??
1Corinthians 16:2 - ???????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????????? ??
________________________________________

When one searches for the English word week no equivalent is found.

When one searches for the English word seven, and checks all the various inflected forms none of them appear in the verses mentioned above.
You contend that Sunday - "Khad b'Shabba" is (one~first of seven~week) and that is found in the above verses.
However from the lexicon your contention is not validated.

You will perhaps say to me that my understanding of the lexicon is incorrect, if this so, how should I understand the lexicon?

So hopefully now understand why I asked the question, 1) Can you explain to me why ?????????????????? shaba aramaic number seven)
Is not present in the text of Luke 24:1 or for that matter MATTHEW 28:1, MARK 16:2,John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7, 1Corinthians 16:2 .
Therefore simply retorting ???In Matthew 28:1, John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7 and 1Cor. 16:2 the word used is "Khad b-Shabba", "first of the week".....what's your point? Can you actually read the Aramaic, or are you just wasting my time???? is not really helpful because it does not explain the differences in the lexical definitions which I have raised above..

When I asked ???What mechanism within Aramaic gives you the licence to change ???one??? ???? to first ?????????????? . What I am actually saying to you is that in all the verses we have been referring to, the expression ???one??? ???? is used and not first ?????????????? You have either completely missed the point of what I am saying or you have chosen to deliberately misrepresent what I have said.


You said ???What? Are you drunk, or something? Seriously dude.??? I am stone cold sober and as serious as a judge.
You said ???I don't know why I'm wasting my time here but you are so pathetically uneducated on this topic, this is funny. Who changed Khad to Qadmaya? Why does that matter????

From the outset I have said to you the Aramaic was new to me, your continual bashing of me on this point is particularly sad because this is something we both know, but you continue to use it as some sort of point scoring mechanism.
For the avoidance of doubt and for the purposes of clarity, the reason why it matters is because you chosen to render certain texts as you to consider fit to render them, your rendering appears to be at odds with what is actually written in the peshitta based on an understanding from the lexicon. If you can reconcile your rendering with what is in the lexicon, then I will accept what you are saying.

You said, "In English, don't you have multiple ways of saying the same thing...."first?"

How about these examples in English:

(a) Rule One
(b) The Primary Rule
© The First Rule
(d) The Foremost Rule
(e) The Preeminent Rule

Why does the fact that Aramaic has multiple ways of saying "first", or multiple ways to count the number of the days of the week, surprise you? Why can't you say "day two" instead of Monday, or "the day after Sunday"....., or "2 of seven", or "6 days before Sunday?"

Yet again Paul you have either missed the point or deliberately chosen to misrepresent it. I am not disputing the fact that there are multiple ways to say the same thing. What I am saying is based on the definition of the words used in the lexicon, you have chosen a similar but different word.

I said ???3)What biblical evidence do you have that "week" means Sabbath? And before you rush to tell me Leviticus 23:15 everybody knows that there are seven days between one sabbath and another, but this does not mean a Sabbath means a week, it simply means there seven days between Sabbaths.
(I hope that wasn???t too FBI for you.)


You said, ???Trust me dude, nothing you can write is too "FBI" for me. ???
From this statement alone it is clear you do not understand me. The FBI reference was to an earlier comment you made about my level of questioning being was akin to being interrogated by the FBI, your response reads clearly reads as though there is no question that I could ask you in this field which you could not answer,
When in actual fact what I am saying is I hope that you do not consider that I am asking you the same question OVER and OVER again in an attempt to wear you down.
This is symptomatic of the type of response you give. You jump to conclusions, then answer based on your incorrect understanding of the question.


You said, ???Why don't you go and ask any Jew what "Shavuah Tov" means, ok????
I did, in fact I asked a rabbi and the answer I got was ??? Shavua Tov in english literally means good week. It is a greeting is used after havdalah the ceremony that marks the conclusion of Shabbat, to wish someone a good forthcoming week.
Paul, pray tell, how does this answer the question what biblical evidence do you have that "week" means Sabbath?


You said ???Question 2: In 1Cor. 16:2, Paul instructs them "every" ("kul") Khad b-Shabba. How does this fit in with the once-a-year scenario, verses their weekly gatherings? I answered: The ???kul??? ???every??? refers to persons present rather than time or event. This can be clearly be seen in Dr. John Wesley Etheridge translation from the peshitta despite the fact he renders Sabbath as first day of the week.


You said ???That's impossible because the word "Kul" appears right before the noun which it acts upon, which is "khad b'shabba". Etheridge translated "kul"as "each"....which is the same thing in English as "every", are you sure you even understand English? Or, since your name is Claud, are you a Frenchman or something????

I concede that you are correct in respect of the usage of the word ???kul???. However, the seven Sabbaths counted to the feast of weeks is not strictly speaking a once-a-year ???scenario, it is a seven times a year. It is possible that the ???kul??? is referring to each and everyone of those remaining Sabbaths. The curious thing though is that this text reads completely different in greek ( refer to the thread I posted Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:29 am ). By the way I do understand English and I am not French, I am in fact English if I were French Claud would most likely have an ???e??? on the end, not that this has any bearing on the discussion. I would prefer it in future if you left your prejudices out of the discussion, ie just because you think I may be French, this would somehow be a reason for me not to understand English)

The beginning of Acts 20:7 is literally translated day] ????????????????????[one] ??????????[sabbath]???????????????? , this not my opinion this what the lexicon tells me, again if you able to clearly reconcile your understanding of first of seven in the is text with what the lexicon says then as I said before then I will accept what you say.

As you have seen already I have accepted a couple of points which you have made, perhaps I???m not as dogmatic as you might think. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

You said, ???Again, I repeat my question to you which you still have not answered:

Which "First among Sabbaths", or "One of the Sabbaths" was being referred to in Acts 20:7 ????
The question you asked previously was Which Khad b-Shabba is being referred to in Acts 20:5-7? To which I gave a perfectly clear answer; No Khad b-Shabba is being referred to in Acts 20:5-7.
The question has now been modified from Khad b-Shabba to "First among Sabbaths", or "One of the Sabbaths" was being referred to in Acts 20:7 ???? Answer: The first thing to recognise which I believe you have, is that text cannot be referring to one of the Sabbaths which was the first sabbath after Passover as in Luke 24:1. The reality is we are not told specifically which Sabbath it was but, by inference as you have shown one of the Sabbaths could refer to the 4th Sabbath after the Passover. Why, knowing exactly which Sabbath is of such great significance to you is unclear!

You said, ???Another thing you don't understand, apparently. Sunday is not the only day of the week we call "(number) of the week"....or "(number) of seven???
Sunday - "Khad b'Shabba" (one~first of seven~week)
Monday - "Treyn b'Shabba" (two~second of seven~week)
Tuesday - "Tlatha b'Shabba" (three-third of seven~week)
Wednesday - "Arba b-Shabba" (four~fourth of seven~week)
Thursday - "Khamesha b-Shabba" (five-fifth of seven~week)
Friday - "Shtaa b'Shabba" (six~sixth of seven~week) (we call this day "Arubta", "preparation")
Saturday - "Shabba b'Shaba" (seven~seventh of seven~week) (we call this day "Shabtha", "Sabbath")

I fully understand what you are saying, however for me to accept what you are saying you need to demonstrate that the language as you currently understand it now was in use at the time the gospels were written 1st century CE. I am sure I do not need to remind you that Aramaic spoken a 1000 years ago, never mind 2000 years ago! was different not to mention the various dialects . As I said before one only has to look at english over the last 500 years to see how much that has changed, and in linguistic terms english to aramaic is a mere infant.


You said , ???What doesn't work, what is impossible, is to render "Khad b-Shabba" to mean "the first sabbath", "sabbath one", "one of the sabbaths" or any such nonsense. It doesn't work grammatically.???
You may well be correct which is why I have said all along that ???Khad b-Shabba??? is not found in the text of Luke 24:1
Again, if you can reconcile your rendering with what is in the Dukhrana Analytical Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament then I will accept what you are saying. It would be helpful to me if you move away from using your transliteration ???Khad b-Shabba??? and use the exact words as they appear in Aramaic text giving the exact meaning for each word in english, as this is essentially what I have done when I used the lexicon.
Shlama w???burkate

Claud.
#43
Quote:However, the reason why I raised the issue was because when you use the Dukhrana Analytical Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament to search for the English word Sabbath....and so on.

Quote:I fully understand what you are saying, however for me to accept what you are saying you need to demonstrate that the language as you currently understand it now was in use at the time the gospels were written 1st century CE.

Shlama Akhi Claud:
The Dukhrana Lexical Concordance is very basic and common sense is required when using it. We all have to put up with that. The Lexical Concordance doesn't list "week" as an English definition, but that's because it's incomplete. The only other Aramaic lexical sources are in extra-Biblical literature or other Aramaic Lexicons. The onus is on you Claud, to learn to read Aramaic and prove your point, not anyone here, Akhi. You're jamming a square peg into a round hole, Claud. There is no textual proof in the Peshitta New Testament for a Saturday morning resurrection of Yeshua Meshikha. You've been dancing all around this topic using lengthy monologues with zero results. You are wasting our time here. Can't you just move on to another topic and leave this one on the back burner, so to speak. I'll leave it up for now, but the topic is getting old, so let it go, Akhi Claud.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
#44
Shlama all--

I have let this thread go on long enough without commenting.

To me this matter is very simple. I assume that when dealing with the same precise instant in time or actual event, that no Gospel writer is wrong but that we should bring all the details together and compare them for clarity. I have been therefore absolutely astonished that no one seems to want to say, "Wait a minute! The point is not just Luke 24 or Matthew 28, or John 20, the point is what ALL OF THEM SAY, including the one I left out, Mark 16:2-9.

This is the bottom line:

16:2- b'shapra din b'khad b'shaba --literally at early morning/dawn while on the first (day) of the week.

Anyone who insists "day" must be there simply doesn't know Aramaic.

16:2b- kad d'nakh shemsha (while was rising the sun)

So the women are going to the tomb as the morning is "in dawn" and they set off moments earlier, "while still dark" in John 20:1. Now granted, it is possible to suggest that the woman may have (by this description thus far) may have gone to the tomb at dawn but the resurrection happened earlier that "day" meaning after Saturday sunset, which is by Jewish reckoning the beginning of the first day of the week.

That is why, in my opinion, we have Mark 16:9:

b'shapra din (at early morning/dawn while)
b'khad b'shaba (on the first [day] of the week)
QAM (he had risen)

The grammar here is unmistakeable. It is not just the women who came to an empty tomb at first day dawn (Bikurrim--BTW, the Firstfruits that Y'shua represents but that's another story), but HE ROSE AT FIRST DAY DAWN.

Now, admittedly, in the West there is a complication here with respect to the "long ending" of Mark 16:9-20, but the fact is that is only a Western problem. The Peshitta has always had the longer ending. And in spite of this, the vast majority of Christians and Nazarenes accept Mark 16:9 as Scripture. If someone doesn't then perhaps an argument can be made for another timeline, but my point is in Aramaic, Mark 16:9 is absolutely airtight and I don't think the Greek contradicts the Peshitta either.

Saturday evening is one thing--I deal with that as a possibility in Mari. But Satruday morning? From everything we know about both Greek and Aramaic, and admittedly gong through a prism of Aramaic primacy even if the Greek disagreed which it does not, such an idea is not just unlikely. It is impossible.

Don't believe me? Check these out:

09 And in the morning of the first day of the week, he arose; and he appeared first to Mary Magdalena, from whom he had cast out seven demons. (Murdock)

But in the morning of the first day of the week he arose, and was first seen by Mariam Magdalitha (Etheridge)

Now he rose early on the first day of the week (Lamsa)

Paul Younan translates this the same way I do, as does Bauscher. So that is 7 for 7. Anyone who says otherwise is either not coming from an Aramaic primacy standpoint or is not representing what the Aramaic says. People can believe whatever they want, but don't do so at the expense of the text.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#45
Shlama,

In the hope that this help to clarify the meaning of the word shabat as week:

From "A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac: As Spoken by the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan, Northwest Persia, and the Plain of Mosul. With Illustrations from the Dialects of the Jews of Zakhu and Azerbaijan, and of the Western Syrians of Tur'abdin and Ma'lula
By Arthur John Maclean
" (you can find it here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.archive.org/details/adictionarydial00maclgoog">http://www.archive.org/details/adiction ... 00maclgoog</a><!-- m -->)


.png   payne.png (Size: 32.98 KB / Downloads: 789)

From "A Compendious Syriac Dictionary" by Robert Payne Smith"


.png   dial.png (Size: 104.77 KB / Downloads: 788)


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)