stephan huller

Well according to Irenaeus, one part of God produced another part of God which is the same God.

stephan huller

I think the more acceptable rendering of Luke 1:35 Syriac would be 'lie on' you following Lamsa's 'rest on you.'

stephan huller

Here is the root term in Lk 1:35 where it is clearly stated that 'lie upon' is one of the meanings of the term:

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/

Sorry that link doesn't work. Here is the information:

gnn vb. a/ to inhabit, C to protect



G View a KWIC


1 to inhabit Syr.



C View a KWIC


1 to protect Com. TAD A4.5V.23 ٠٠٠٠ יה]גנון למנדעמתא זי let them protect whatever ... † . TgJ Jonah4:6 לְמִהוֵי טֻולָא עַל רֵישֵיה לְאַגָנָא לֵיה/עלוהי#3#/ BR 107:8(2) הדן טופ{ש}<ז>א the cony is protected beneath the cliff. (a) usually + ˁl JLAtg, Gal, PTA, Syr. SYAP 50:5 הימינה דרמה מגנה עליכון the belt of the High One will protect you.

2 to inhabit, to seek shelter Jud, Syr.

3 (Holy Spirit) to make indwell (in Mary or in the Host) Syr. AphDiatess1990 4:1 ܐܓܢ ܥܠܝܗܿ ܚܝܠܐ ܐܠܗܝܐ ܕܬܬܢܩܦ ܠܡܝܘܬܐ the power of God indwelled in her that it might be joined to a mortal.

4 to cover (but not necessarily as protection) CPA, Syr. (a) to place the hand on Syr. (b) to lie upon Syr.

These are the original shades of meaning of the terminology before the theological language of Judaism crept in the fourth century.



Ct View a KWIC


1 to be protected JLAtg.

For the theological usage in Syr. see Brock, The Luminous Eye, pp. 110ff. and "The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1:35 and the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation," in Fire from Heaven (Ashgate, 2006) and related essays there.

Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 248[122]; DJPA: 133b; DJBA: 296b; Jastrow: 260; Payne-Smith: 742; J. Payne-Smith: 73;



View a complete KWIC


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derivatives:


ˀgn n.m. tent

ˀgnh, ˀgntˀ (ˀaggānā, ˀaggāntā) v.n.C protection

ˀgnw, ˀgnwtˀ v.n.C shelter

bgyn (bḡēn/bḡīn) prep. because of


bgyn conj. because, since

bgyn kn (bḡēn/bḡīn kēn) conj. therefore

mn bgyn prep./conj because

gn, gnˀ (gan, gannā/ginnā) n.m. garden


bnt gnˀ (bnāṯ ganē) n.m. mandrakes

gngn, gngnˀ n.m. gardener (??)

gnh, gntˀ (ga/innā, ga/innəṯā) n.f. garden


br gntˀ (bar ganṯā) n.m. mustard; fennel

gntwny, gntwnytˀ n.f. small garden

gnwny, gnwnytˀ n.f. garden

gnwsh, gnwstˀ (gannōsā, gannōstā) n.f. small garden

gnn, gnnˀ (gannān, gannānā) n.m. gardener

mgn, mgnˀ (mḡen, mḡe/annā) n.m. shield

mgnn, mgnnˀ (maggənān, maggənānā) nom.ag.C protector


mgnnw, mgnnwtˀ (maggənānū, maggənānūṯā) n.f. enveloping; overshadowing

stephan huller

I've been reading Sebastian Brock's analysis of this term in Luke 1:35 and elsewhere and I can't help get the average man's contempt for scholarship. On the one hand, I love reading Brock's work. He's brilliant. But at the same time you get the sense that these guys make things more complicated than they have to be. His point is that the term is paralleled by a phenomenon where we see God appear 'on' or 'over' (al) rather than 'to' people in later Jewish Aramaic. That may be true. But at the same time when Luke was saying that wa-hayleh de-calyd naggen 'layk in relation to a woman in a private residence - does it really make sense to say that the power of God 'will cover over' or 'will lay upon' Mary especially when the next words say a child was produced? I think it is a no brainer.

I know that Syriac tradition develops all these analogies which take away the sexual implications here. But why should we care?

stephan huller

And I want to stress how annoying this tendency is in scholarship. All these books now cite Brock to defend the idea that Lk 1:35 here is related by later Syriac writers to the Jewish Aramaic use of gnn to mean 'to protect' etc. Yet Djivers has demonstrated quite clearly that the use of Syriac in Christianity before the 4th century came from pagan - i.e. non-Jewish sources. The phenomenon Brock is demonstrating is clearly much later. The idea then that Lk 1:35 is illustrating a Jewish Aramaism with respect to gnn is laughable. It does not mean that the Spirit came to Mary and then the power of the Most High 'protected' her or 'covered over' her. It simply means God lay upon Mary. These scholars over complicate things or perhaps better - can't seem to get to the bottom of things because then the problem is naked and there isn't as much to write about. They can't demonstrate how brilliant they are.