Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mk 1:45, Priest or Priests?
#1
Mk 1:45, Priest or Priests?
Shlama lekoulkhoun!
Another issue that I have detect in my study of the Markan pericope of ???Jesus and the Leper??? (Mk 1:39-45) is the discordance --IN THE GREEK TEXT??? of verse 45, concerning the number, between the SINGULAR tw ierei (upage seauton deixon tw ierei: Go, showing yourself to THE PRIEST) and the following PLURAL autoiv (... eiv marturion autoiv : ???as accusation against THEM???; also translated ???as testimony for them??? but here the polemical context and grammatical structure ???even the Greek dative ???suggests the ???against??? = accusation)*. Here the Peshitta has[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 0n^hkl [/font] (PRIESTS, IN PLURAL, with the ???Seyame???), properly agreeing with [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Jwhtwdhsl [/font], which at the same time ???rhymes??? with the [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Jwht4w^nk [/font]of the verse 39 (Suffix [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Jwh [/font]; ???...In the Synagogues of THEM???, or ???In THEIR Synagogue???), clearly identifying these autoiv of v. 45, suddenly ???parachuted??? in the Greek text (Where THEY come from?). Obviously, Zorba was confused with the Aramaic (without vowels is the same writing) or he didn???t notice the Seyame (Akhi Paul please could explain me if in this early time it was currently used in Syriac?). Anyway, it would be very easy to confuse IN ARAMAIC the plural with singular, BUT NOT IN GREEK! if it had being the ???original???, since the morphology of tw ierei and toiv iereusi[n] (which should be THE PLURAL dative for ???To the Priests???) is quite different... So, could the confusion of the ???Aramaic Translator??? be possible? I don???t think so, do you?
Shlama,
Ab. Valentin


* LXX translates the Hebrew verb dwv with marturew + dative, with this ???accusatory??? sense. See some exs.: Deut 8:19; 31:26.28; Ps 50:7; 81:9; 1Ki 17:13; 2Cro 24:19. The Aramaic ???Lamed Incommodi??? admits this translation (Cf. E. VOGT, lexicon linguae aramaicae Veteris Testamenti, Roma 1971, 89). If we accept the Leper???s narrative as the first of the SEVEN (!) following series of apothegms (controversies) from 2:1-3:6 (+3:22-30) the ???against??? sense seems to be more comprehensible.
Reply
#2
Beautiful example Akhi Valentin!

The Syame marks which indicate plurality were not invented until many centuries after the NT was first penned - so this is a great example where the Greek has "Priest" (singular) and then immediately followed by "against them" (plural).

The beautiful part is that the Aramaic for "against them" is clearly in the plural without the need for Syame markings - so Zorba had no trouble there. It's with "Priest" (a noun) that he could have used the help of Syame markings. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->

Great find!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)