Greek Scholars please help
- Thread starter MarcR
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
'born' and 'brought forth' are synonymous in this context...
both are speaking of jesus' human birth...'brought forth' is just speaking of birth in more lofty language...
both are valid translations but 'born' is more clear whereas 'brought forth' is more poetic but also vague enough to be misunderstood by someone...
both are speaking of jesus' human birth...'brought forth' is just speaking of birth in more lofty language...
both are valid translations but 'born' is more clear whereas 'brought forth' is more poetic but also vague enough to be misunderstood by someone...
It is indeed a dahlet; and pointed with a shvah it is probably a variant on one of the inseparable prepositions.
It is not used in the Babylonian pidgin Aramaic (of Daniel). My best guess is that it replaces the ל in the directional preposition 'to'; but probably not in the infinitive. I hope that helps.
It is not used in the Babylonian pidgin Aramaic (of Daniel). My best guess is that it replaces the ל in the directional preposition 'to'; but probably not in the infinitive. I hope that helps.
I have been thinking about this text; and several things seem strange to me.
I have not camek written as a circle before.
The vowel pointings used were developed by the Masorites between the fourth and ninth centuries A.D.; but targum Jonathan was supposedly written in Babylon between 606 and 536 B.C.
Are you sure this is not pseudo Jonathan?
מַלַך שִבטָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה
The dahlet pointed with the shvah is definitely the preposition to; this speaks of the queen of Sheba to the house of Judah.
This must be either from 1Ki 10 or 2Chr 9.
I have not camek written as a circle before.
The vowel pointings used were developed by the Masorites between the fourth and ninth centuries A.D.; but targum Jonathan was supposedly written in Babylon between 606 and 536 B.C.
Are you sure this is not pseudo Jonathan?
מַלַך שִבטָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה
The dahlet pointed with the shvah is definitely the preposition to; this speaks of the queen of Sheba to the house of Judah.
This must be either from 1Ki 10 or 2Chr 9.
Close. It's from Zechariah 14:5 that mentions King Uzziah ruler of the house of Judah. Definitely not pseudo-J. So the daleth must mean of. Do you think it could mean by also depending on the context?
I'm not sure when the targums were written down, but I don't think it was until a century or two after Christ.
I'm not sure when the targums were written down, but I don't think it was until a century or two after Christ.
Last edited:
I don't know what all of this means
ד preposition = די preposition
1 passim of, genitive particle
2 passim first element of lexemes
3 passim in split genitive phrases
4 passim after numbers
5 passim determinative pron.
ד conjunction = די conjunction
1 passim who,which (relative)
2 passim the one(s) who (determinative)
3 passim that (complement to verbs)
4 passim so that
5 passim because
6 passim in compound conjunctions
7 passim before direct speech
8 passim with correlatives
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. (2004; 2004). Targum Lexicon. Hebrew Union College.
ד preposition = די preposition
1 passim of, genitive particle
2 passim first element of lexemes
3 passim in split genitive phrases
4 passim after numbers
5 passim determinative pron.
ד conjunction = די conjunction
1 passim who,which (relative)
2 passim the one(s) who (determinative)
3 passim that (complement to verbs)
4 passim so that
5 passim because
6 passim in compound conjunctions
7 passim before direct speech
8 passim with correlatives
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. (2004; 2004). Targum Lexicon. Hebrew Union College.
Yes, but neither Hebrew nor Babylonian pidgin Aramaic form the genitive this way
In both Hebrew and the Aramaic of Daniel, the genitive is formed by use of the Maqqeph or pointing the penultimate consonant with a hireq and ending in a yod (in the first person singular common gender.)
by is usually represented as ב as are in or with.
This dialect is very different!
In both Hebrew and the Aramaic of Daniel, the genitive is formed by use of the Maqqeph or pointing the penultimate consonant with a hireq and ending in a yod (in the first person singular common gender.)
by is usually represented as ב as are in or with.
This dialect is very different!
I stand corrected. The Babylonian Talmud is generally thought to have been written during the last three decades of the captivity.
Targum Jonathan (תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל), otherwise referred to as Targum Yonasan/Yonatan, is the official eastern (Babylonian) targum to the Nevi'im. Its early origins, however, are western (i.e. from the Land of Israel), and the Talmudic tradition attributes its authorship to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Its overall style is very similar to that of Targum Onkelos, though at times it seems to be a looser paraphrase.
The language of Targum Jonathan is Aramaic.
In Talmudic times (and to this day in Yemenite Jewish communities) Targum Jonathan was read as a verse-by-verse translation alternatively with the Hebrew verses of the haftarah in the synagogue. Thus, when the Talmud states that "a person should complete his portions of scripture along with the community, reading the scripture twice and the targum once" (Berakhot 8a-b), the passage may be taken to refer to Targum Jonathan (as well as to Targum Onkelos on the Torah).
Hence its association with the Babylonian Talmud is NOT linguistic.
I own a copy of the Mishna of the Babylonian Talmud, and read it as easily as Hebrew.
Targum Jonathan (תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל), otherwise referred to as Targum Yonasan/Yonatan, is the official eastern (Babylonian) targum to the Nevi'im. Its early origins, however, are western (i.e. from the Land of Israel), and the Talmudic tradition attributes its authorship to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Its overall style is very similar to that of Targum Onkelos, though at times it seems to be a looser paraphrase.
The language of Targum Jonathan is Aramaic.
In Talmudic times (and to this day in Yemenite Jewish communities) Targum Jonathan was read as a verse-by-verse translation alternatively with the Hebrew verses of the haftarah in the synagogue. Thus, when the Talmud states that "a person should complete his portions of scripture along with the community, reading the scripture twice and the targum once" (Berakhot 8a-b), the passage may be taken to refer to Targum Jonathan (as well as to Targum Onkelos on the Torah).
Hence its association with the Babylonian Talmud is NOT linguistic.
I own a copy of the Mishna of the Babylonian Talmud, and read it as easily as Hebrew.
I stand corrected. The Babylonian Talmud is generally thought to have been written during the last three decades of the captivity.
Targum Jonathan (תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל), otherwise referred to as Targum Yonasan/Yonatan, is the official eastern (Babylonian) targum to the Nevi'im. Its early origins, however, are western (i.e. from the Land of Israel), and the Talmudic tradition attributes its authorship to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Its overall style is very similar to that of Targum Onkelos, though at times it seems to be a looser paraphrase.
The language of Targum Jonathan is Aramaic.
In Talmudic times (and to this day in Yemenite Jewish communities) Targum Jonathan was read as a verse-by-verse translation alternatively with the Hebrew verses of the haftarah in the synagogue. Thus, when the Talmud states that "a person should complete his portions of scripture along with the community, reading the scripture twice and the targum once" (Berakhot 8a-b), the passage may be taken to refer to Targum Jonathan (as well as to Targum Onkelos on the Torah).
Hence its association with the Babylonian Talmud is NOT linguistic.
I own a copy of the Mishnah of the Babylonian Talmud, and read it as easily as Hebrew.
Targum Jonathan (תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל), otherwise referred to as Targum Yonasan/Yonatan, is the official eastern (Babylonian) targum to the Nevi'im. Its early origins, however, are western (i.e. from the Land of Israel), and the Talmudic tradition attributes its authorship to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Its overall style is very similar to that of Targum Onkelos, though at times it seems to be a looser paraphrase.
The language of Targum Jonathan is Aramaic.
In Talmudic times (and to this day in Yemenite Jewish communities) Targum Jonathan was read as a verse-by-verse translation alternatively with the Hebrew verses of the haftarah in the synagogue. Thus, when the Talmud states that "a person should complete his portions of scripture along with the community, reading the scripture twice and the targum once" (Berakhot 8a-b), the passage may be taken to refer to Targum Jonathan (as well as to Targum Onkelos on the Torah).
Hence its association with the Babylonian Talmud is NOT linguistic.
I own a copy of the Mishnah of the Babylonian Talmud, and read it as easily as Hebrew.
G
Jesus did not "change form"; rather, He "took on the form" of a human being -- now with a "glorified body", yet will He live forever in the human form. It is not temporary.
When we get our "glorified body", we will be "just like Him" ( in that [ bodily ] sense ).
The 'Sonship' of Christ rests in the virgin birth; more specifically, the Holy Spirit 'conception'. The whole idea of the 'Son of God' is that Jesus was 'begotten' by God -- i.e. - entering into humanity. The Word took on human form ( John 1:14 ) -- and became the Son of God. The Word was not the Son "before" entering into humanity. It is the "entering into humanity" that defines the 'Sonship' of Christ.
When we get our "glorified body", we will be "just like Him" ( in that [ bodily ] sense ).
The 'Sonship' of Christ rests in the virgin birth; more specifically, the Holy Spirit 'conception'. The whole idea of the 'Son of God' is that Jesus was 'begotten' by God -- i.e. - entering into humanity. The Word took on human form ( John 1:14 ) -- and became the Son of God. The Word was not the Son "before" entering into humanity. It is the "entering into humanity" that defines the 'Sonship' of Christ.