From: Trevor Peterson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 24 2001 - 14:58:56 EDT
It's also worth noting that the Syriac version renders both Greek words
for love in John 21 with the same word throughout. Syriac (a CNE dialect
of Aramaic) does have more than one word for love, and it seems to me they
could pretty easily have made a similar distinction. What that says is
beyond me. Maybe the translators didn't see a wordplay in the passage? I
don't recall offhand (and don't have a copy with me to check) what it does
with Peter's rock, but I would assume it makes no distinction there
Randall, would you happen to have the actual rabbinic citation? I'd be
curious to see how it's used.
> Thompsen egrapsen:
> >> Also someone mentioned there was 'Greek word play' which is not
> >> possible in Hebrew or Aramaic in Matthew 16 and John 21, what exactly =
> >> this?
> Kilmon apekriqh:
> >Which verses? Mark 16 is unfinished or lost from 16:9 on and appended
> >with a non-Markan ending (several versions). John 21 is also an appendix=
> >not part of the original.
> Probably refers to the two "classics": "rock" and "love".
> On 'rock' see David Bivin in Jerusalem Perspective arguing for Petros as =
> loan-word/name. And Yes, the wordplay was possible in Mishnaic Hebrew, ev=
> attested in rabbinic literature.
> On 'love', there are alot of ways to express various shades of love in bo=
> Hebrew and Aramaic. The 'impossibility' is more a limit on the person's o=
> grasp of the languages. HOWEVER, that being said, I think John 21 was
> written in Greek.
> Randall Buth
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:55 EDT