judge

It is singular genetive. 3rd person (sometimes 1st or second in Attic). masculine or neutral, never feminine.
Here it seems to be masculine, "treasure of him", treasure of the eunuch (eunuch is probably yet another mistranslation ) . You seem unwilling to argue otherwise, but feel free to do so.





If you or Spin want to introduce the latin then please do. I dont give two hoots whether you do or dont.

If you have such a strong argument then why are you two keeping it a secret.

One can of course argue that it is just an amazing coincidence that right where the Aramaic gaza is ambiguous both meanings show up in the greek. After all amazing coincidences do happen.

Once they begin to happen time and time and time again it's usually best to admit something else is going on.

We have only looked a few examples here over the years. There are many more. To your credit you never actually say you think you know one way or the other, just ask an awful lot of questions

spin

Yup, that's right.

As I've pointed out in my previous post the form gaza was not an Aramaic term at the time. Why does the Syriac have GZ) when Palestinian Aramaic used GNZ? You don't know. It can't be that it was the Greek influence, because you can't accept that.

So many linguistic items end up in Aramaic from the Greek, it's time for you to admit what's going on.

Actually over the years we've looked at quite a few and none of them survive the light of day. When all the major evidence points to Syriac being the recipient language rather than the source, you who know nothing about the languages want to believe that the contrary is true.


spin

judge

We have looked a a small sample. Yes, to you, they dont survive the light of day, but that is ok.
You have for several years now (maybe longer) been attempting to put together your first paper for peer review. A worthy idea, no problem there.
All the years of work you have put into it will be in vain if in fact you have had the wrong assumption from the very beginning. Thus you have an emotional interest in not seeing.
So whilst peshitta primacy may not be true, you are not the best person to judge whether it is. Nothing personal is intended here, and i wish you the very best.



You have not actually demonstrated this. You provided two pieces of data.

And then jumped to a conclusion.

spin

Given your input you weren't able to help.

Is it a problem that the evolution of early christian traditions apparently happened in Greek. Aww.

Your attempt to taint the issue aside, I have some knowledge of the linguistic issues. You don't seem to, besides which you are committed to the belief of Aramaic primacy without any way of testing it yourself. Your judgment on the subject seems to be impaired.

Two pieces of data: the earlier form of the word used in the Jewish context and the latter forms. What is wrong with the obvious conclusion?

You have no response to the evidence. I can give you more if you like, but what would you do with it other than disregard it as you have here?


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

Genitive

Sometimes what???


Seems to be? Don't you know?

And if it is not, what becomes of your claim that the pronoun is a translation from a Syriac word that could be either male or female in gender.

I'm unwilling to argue that it could be feminine because it cant!


I guess we are presuming that you have the skill to look the Latin text up on your own and the intelligence to understand what it says. We are obviously foolish to do so.

But it begs the question to say that both meanings show up until you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt not only (a) that the Greek expression τῆς γάζης is not good Greek and can be nothing but a transliteration of the Syriac GZ), let alone that the Syriac text that the scribe of D allegedly transliterated from was unpointed, but (b) that the αὐτοῦ at the end of D's expression ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης is masculine and not neuter.

And why on earth do you keeping using the loaded word "amazing"? Even if what we have here is a coincidence, it is hardly an amazing one, especially given the orthographic and transcriptional habits of D's scribe.

Now when are you finally going to answer my question of whether you read Syriac and/or Greek and/or Latin?

Jeffrey

judge

Well as I showed you earlier (you seemed quite unaware) the word has a long history.

By using the two examples you provided you can't demonstrate when the -n- was dropped.

You dont know enough about Yerushalmi Targum Deuteronomy and you dont know anything (from what you have posted here) about the history of the change from gnza to gza.

1.Did it just happen overnight everywhere?
2.Was it a slow process?
3.Did it happen in some areas before others?
You need to address these issues before you can conclude.
However, you are insisting that you do know. You have concluded .

Remember too that tradition (not that it counts for much) holds that Luke was the writer of Acts and that he was from Antioch.
Now we don't have to give any weight to this but it is at least a warning bell to the assumptions you make about* an Aramaic speaking writer of Acts.

Why would the Yerushalmi Targum Deuteronomy even be relevant if Luke was say from Antioch (not to mention all the other places one could hail from where Aramaic was spoken).

judge

Boy Dr you need to get out more.

judge

Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt is for maths Dr Gibson.
You have written some papers, have you not?

Can you tell me anything you proved in any of these "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

spin

You don't mind telling those who know something that you don't anything, but you're going to talk about it anyway. That's encouraging conversation.


spin

spin

Stop cribbing. The information isn't accurate in the sense that the Persian didn't come from the Sanskrit: they came from the same source, as they are two different branches of the Indo-Iranian family.

[/quote]
As I pointed out Palestinian Aramaic preserved the /n/. You can find the word GNZ several times in the targums, of which I cited one, but I could give you more if you want them, but you won't check them.

I've shown anyone who is interested that there is a case that the /n/ was integral to the word in Aramaic, both before and after the time of the construction of the Peshitta.

What would you like to know, judge? Consider though that the targums were Aramaic translations of Hebrew biblical texts, made so that the Palestinian Aramaic speakers could also understand the TNK.

Just that GNZ was prevalent before and after the time of the writing of the nt.

The Palestinian form of Aramaic maintained the nun. This is evident from the targums. Biblical Aramaic in Ezra as well as the Hebrew of Esther supply several examples with the nun. You wish there were only two exemplars, one before and one after. But not true.

The Bavli Talmud uses GZ). Perhaps the nt was written in Babylon. The Mishna uses the word only twice and it is GNZ -- another point for the Palestinian form. Both Hebrew and Aramaic.

What is it you're claiming the nt was written in now, judge? Syriac? Palestinian Aramaic, judge, is the source, isn't it? Both Mark and John also have GZ) in the Peshitta. Did they write in Syria? It is easier to see that the Greek text influenced the Aramaic translators of the Peshitta and caused the change of spelling of the GNZ. After all the form had been in Greek for centuries, unlike the Palestinian languages.


spin