Ephesians 2:15

[distazo]

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Yhwndqwpb 0dqwpd 0swmnw[/font]
and-[the]-laws of-[the]-commands in-his-commandments

Some have said the doubling up of the root [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]dqp[/font] back-to-back with [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0swmn[/font] is attempting to reference the rules-upon-rules of the religious Jews.

In Luke 1:6, [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Yhwndqwp[/font] is rendered his-commandments.

What does an pro-abolitionist interpretation say about the triple-compounding of law/command?

Excuse me for quoting j. trimm <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> He is not a document-purist, but he mixes several sources (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) together to one new source <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> but he says something interesting. (I think, unless it's just not true)

The Dalet Clause
One of the most easily misunderstood elements of Aramaic is the Dalet Clause.
This very ambiguous preposition is so easily mistranslated into other languages.
The Aramaic particle d or yd104 can mean any of several things. This preposition
can mean "of; that; which; that which; who, because or because of" This ambiguity
caused the Greek translator to misunderstand Eph. 2:25a. The Aramaic reads:
l+b yhwndqwpb )dqwpd )swmnw hrsbb )twbbdl(bw
This translates word by word as:
w(and) )twbbdl(b (enmity) b(by) hrsb (his flesh) w(and) )swmn (the Torah)
d(because of) )dqwp (commands) b(in) yhwndqwp (his commandments)
l+b (is abolished).
Thus the correct meaning is:
And enmity (by his flesh and the Torah,
because of commands in his commandments)
he abolished.
However the Greek translator misunderstood the DALET CLAUSE here to mean "of"
104 In some dialects of Aramaic this preposition appears as a separate word spelled yd while in other
dialects it appears simply as a d prefix.
lvii
thus producing the meaning:
And enmity in his flesh,
and the Torah of commands in commandments
he abolished.
or as the KJV reads:
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances...
This demonstrates how badly the text in question becomes misunderstood in the Greek
translation simply by misunderstanding the DALET CLAUSE.