Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Casus pendens, non-verbal predicate and subject
#16
Shlama Akhay,

Mattai 6:4

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yskb 0zxd <wb0[/font] (Casus Pendens)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]wh[/font] (Non-Verbal Predicate)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ylgb K9rpn[/font] (Subject)

?? Pat??r son ?? bl???pwn ??n t?? krnpt?? (Casus Pendens)
a??t??v (Non-Verbal Predicate)
???pod??sei soi ??n t?? faner?? (Subject)

Your Father who sees in secret (Casus Pendens)
it is he (Non-Verbal Predicate)
who will reward you openly. (Subject)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#17
Shlama Akhay,

1 Corinthians 2:15

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]J0d Mdm Lk Nyd 0nxwr[/font] (Casus Pendens)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]whw[/font] (Non-Verbal Predicate)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Nydtm f $n0 Nm[/font] (Subject)

hO d?? pneumatik??v ???nakr??nei m??n p???nta (Casus Pendens)
a??t??v d?? (Non-Verbal Predicate)
??p@ o??den??v ???nakr??netai (Subject)

Now, the spiritual man judges all things (Casus Pendens)
yet this one (Non-Verbal Predicate)
He is not judged by any man. (Subject)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#18
Shlama Akhay,

Yaqub 1:26

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]hbl hl 09=m f0 hn4l dx0 fw 0hl0l $m4md rbs $n0 J0w[/font] (Casus Pendens)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0nhd[/font] (Non-Verbal Predicate)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]ht4m4t Yh 0qyrs[/font] (Subject)

E?? tiv doke?? qrsk??v e??nai ??n ??m??n m?? calinagwg??n gl??ssan a??to?? ???ll?? ???pat??n kard??an a??to??(Casus Pendens)
to??tou (Non-Verbal Predicate)
m???tiov ?? qrjske??a (Subject)

If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart (Casus Pendens)
this man (Non-Verbal Predicate)
his religion is useless. (Subject)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#19
This thread as used for Peshitta Primacy is very interesting. These are some of the "nuts" and "bolts" that I am looking for as I do my research. But there may be one tiny problem that may blow this whole theory of "Causus Pendens, Non Verbal Predicate-Subject" rule right out of the water. You may well have brought up the fact that this order is never produced in original Classical Greek. But the whole premise of Greek New Testment scholars is the the NT is written in "koine" Greek or maybe call it "baby" Greek or "streetman's Greek," not classical. This makes your proof here mute - does it not???

Graciously,

Mike
Reply
#20
Shlama Akhi Mike,

Think about it this way: it looks just like we would expect a translation from Aramaic/Hebrew/Arabic to Greek would look. It looks just like the LXX, which we know is a translation. Forget about "Koine" for a moment. If it looks like other Greek documents that we know were translated from Semitic originals (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, etc.) - then the simplest explanation is that the Greek NT, too, is a translation.

Now to test the hypothesis, we should be able to find examples of Casus pendens in Koine Greek literature, in primary sources from the same time period. In fact, we do not. Koine Greek did exist, but not to the extent that it followed, structure by structure, Semitic grammar. There should never be Casus pendens in an Indo-European document, because like to our English brethren here this isn't natural Greek and not something that one would expect would have been originally composed in Greek.

We need to carefully consider what Koine is: if every strange type of Greek grammar is lumped into the "Koine" category, then really there is no such thing as Greek grammar at all.

I would never compose the following sentence in English:

In my office where my translating do I
There it is
That shall find you my computer


Even though my first language is Semitic, yet I know enough about proper English grammar (despite my wife's objection) - I would never write the above that way. That's undoubtedly a translation from a Semitic source.

If I was composing in English, I would write it this way:

You will find my computer in my office, where I do my translating.

These are examples where the Greek translator had respect for the text and wished to preserve it word-for-word, despite the fact that he would be butchering Greek grammar.

+Shamasha
Reply
#21
Paul, well said, I guess. This is a pretty huge clue in favor of NT Aramaic Primacy. If some or all of the New Testament was orginally penned in Greek, we would expect to see some of this type of "peculiar" syntax in at least some Greek literature outside of the New Testamen whether it is classical or koine. But you are saying that this "syntax" rule never-ever occurs outside of the Greek New Testament?? And that this type of grammer structure is found only in the Greek New Testament?? (Just to be sure). This would be almost a dead giveaway that in whatever NT letter or NT book follows this structure - that these letters/books would have semetic origin. Permit me to ask how often this structure "pops up" in the Greek NT and where (in other passages) are they?? (Other than the ones on this thread; if you want and time permitting).

Now, not to sound insulting, Paul, but what method did you derive to conclude that this syntax structure is never followed in Greek literature?? How do you , , an Aramaic speaker, sure that this syntax structure is never followed in 1st century Greek. Since Dave Bauscher contributed to this thread and is conversant in both Aramaic and Greek he may be able to establish this as a witness.. Thank-you, yes.

Graciously,

Mike
Reply
#22
Shlama Akhi Mike,

Casus Pendens (Latin for "a hanging case") is found infrequently in classical Greek literature, where it is mainly used for a dramatic effect. But it is much more frequent in Hebrew and Aramaic, and Arabic (all Semitic literature for that matter.)

You will never find a grammatical feature that is exclusively Semitic, or exclusively Indo-European. With few exceptions, every language has a bit of all known grammatical constructions. The phenomenon of grammatical borrowing becomes more frequent as different cultures come into contact. For instance, in some parts of the Canada you will find many English grammatical structures that are common to French.

It's not that Casus Pendens was unknown in Greek, it's that it's not the norm. It is very much a standard part of Semitic grammar, where unlike classical Greek which used it for effect, it is the standard way of speaking.

An Aramaic speaker when trying to learn an Indo-European language like English, or Greek, is immediately struck by a number of differences from his normal speech. The impropriety, or redundancy, of Casus Pendens is one of them. While OK for a play for dramatic effect, people will become quickly tired of your speech in English if it is loaded with this particular grammatical feature.

In addition to Casus Pendens, there are several more grammatical structures within Semitic syntax that, although not completely foreign to Indo-European languages, nevertheless are found far more frequently and are considered to be more "standard" in Semitic tongues. I could write a thread with examples of each kind, but I'll briefly list a few types:

[*] Order of Verbs. The typical Semitic sentence structure is Verb-Subject-Object. "Healed Jesus the paralytic." Indo-European languages, on the other hand, much more frequently employ the Subject-Verb-Object, "Jesus Healed the paralytic", or the Object-Verb-Subject, "The paralytic was healed by Jesus." If you read Greek, read the Magnificat (Luke 1:51-55), the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) and the creedal hymn of 1Timothy 3:16. You will be amazed at how often in the GNT this is found, as often as it is found in the LXX (a literal translation.)

[*] Asyndeton (Greek ???????????????????), is another common grammatical structure in Semitic languages. It is where conjunctions are deliberately omitted from a series of related clauses. "I came, I saw, I conquered" is an example in Latin. But unlike Indo-European speech, this is a common feature in Semitic tongues.

Like Causus Pendens, Asyndeton was also infrequently used in classical Greek literature for dramatic effect. But only orally, and was not written. For instance, Aristotle said:

Quote:"Thus strings of unconnected words, and constant repetitions of words and phrases, are very properly condemned in written speeches: but not in spoken speeches ??? speakers use them freely, for they have a dramatic effect. In this repetition there must be variety of tone, paving the way, as it were, to dramatic effect; e.g. 'This is the villain among you who deceived you, who cheated you, who meant to betray you completely.'" Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book III, Chapter 12.

If you'd like, read the Greek version of Acts 20:17-35, where Paul is speaking to the Ephesian Church elders. John 5:3. Matthew 15:19. There are lots of examples in almost every book of the Greek NT.

[*] Parataxis (from the Greek for "side-by-side") is another intolerable grammatical feature found in the Greek LXX and NT. But it is very common in Semitic. It literally involves placing many verbal clauses side-by-side and connecting the clauses with a number of conjuctions ("and", "or"). In Indo-European languages, this redundancy is horrendous.

For a good example, see Mark 10:33-34:

"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and (kai) the Son of Man will be delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, and (kai) they will condemn him to death, and (kai) they will deliver him up to the Gentiles, and (kai) they will mock him and (kai) spit upon him and (kai) scourge him and (kai) kill him, and (kai) three days later he will rise again."

Here Greek style would subordinate one or more of these clauses by means of participles, or relative clauses.

There are a lot of others that I can list, but I have to run for now. I will treat them each separately in their own threads in the near future. These Semitic Grammatical features include things like:

[*] Redundant use of pronouns (eg, Mark 7:25 "A woman whose little daughter of her had an unclean spirit.")

[*] Redundant use of prepositions ("and from....and from.....and from", eg, Mark 3:7-8 "a great crowd followed from Galilee and from Judea")

[*] The use of the positive adjective for the comparative or superlative (eg, John 2:10, "You have kept the best (literally 'good') wine until now." In Semitic languages, with the exception of Arabic, there are no special forms for the comparative and superlative adjectives (such as "bigger," "biggest"). Instead, the positive adjective is used, "big.")

[*] Future indicative used as an imperative (eg, "Whoever wants to be first, he must be the very last,")

[*] Verb and cognate noun expressing emphasis (eg, "they feared a great fear", "with desire I have desired")

[*] Pleonasms, or "fillers." (eg, "he lifted up his eyes and saw")

+Shamasha
Reply
#23
Mike you might find this interesting.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html">http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#24
Okay Paul. You have made your point well. I am looking forward to seeing -some of these examples under each category. If you or anyone else wishes to they can begin each grammatical category under a new thread. I don't know enough Greek to solidly substantiate what you say here (about these unique grammatical structures) but it appears you make a good point. But, as someone who can pronounce the Greek when placed in front of me, we should keep in mind that word order in Greek is of secondary importance or has very little importance from what I have been told.

Judge, thank-you for your link to the article as I will read it in the future; (hopefull sooner rather than later) - time permitting.

But if what you say, Paul, is true and the "Greek translators" did try to stick with the Semitic originals in front of them and thus, breaking many grammatical norms in the Greek; than this could be very significant and, for me, somewhat exciting. We should want more than a few examples though as a pattern of this could be very positive for Aramaic Primacists. But again, keep in mind that word structure or word order in New Testament or Classical Greek was not all that important. So on some of your points this may not be significant. Thanks much and much thanks.

Mike
Reply
#25
Shlama Mike,

Mike Kar Wrote:...the "Greek translators" did try to stick with the Semitic originals in front of them and thus, breaking many grammatical norms in the Greek... [/b]

It's my belief that, more likely than not, the "Greek" translators of the NT were, like the "Greek" translators of the LXX.....Jews.

You can produce a literal translation, or a liberal translation. Each method has its pros and cons. You can see that the Jews who produced the LXX sacrificed Greek grammar at times to stick very closely to the revered text in front of them. It's a problem that all translators have (trust me on this one.)

The translators of the LXX, being Jewish, revered the text in front of them. They wished to create one in Greek that remained faithful, word-for-word as much as possible, to the original text. That's why the Greek of the LXX contains so many of these Semiticisms and grammatical structures.

Mike Kar Wrote:We should want more than a few examples though as a pattern of this could be very positive for Aramaic Primacists.

Yes, absolutely. They will be forthcoming.

+Shamasha
Reply
#26
Hi Paul,

Very interesting. Please continue! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)