Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] A question about Hebrew....

Expand Messages
  • James O'Regan
    ... Alcalay does have miriam (mem-resh-yod-mem) as a translation for Mary in modern Hebrew, which is only 150 years or so old. James O Regan
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Further to Theodore R. Lorah, Jr. who wrote:

      > Yes, Mary is equivalent to Miriam, and jastro, BDB, etc. are the standard
      > Hebrew lexicons. I looked up Miriam, which is the Hebrew original of the
      > "greekicized" Mary.

      Alcalay does have miriam (mem-resh-yod-mem) as a translation for
      "Mary" in modern Hebrew, which is only 150 years or so old.


      James O'Regan
      http://www.jamesoregan.com
      tel 613-824-4706
    • M. Thannisch
      Unfortunately I am not yet a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but I do know that in Arabic Miriam is used for both Maria and Miriam. ... Shalom in Yeshua ha Moshiach
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Unfortunately I am not yet a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but I do know that in
        Arabic Miriam is used for both Maria and Miriam.


        > Now I kind of forget how all this started. But it seems to me that
        > the claim for continuity between Hebrew and Christian scripture for
        > the name "Mary" is extra-textual or at least extra-cannonical, 'r
        > something...
        >
        Shalom in Yeshua ha Moshiach

        Michael Joe Thannisch
        mjthan@...
      • asteresplanetai
        Blessed be God. ... Such would be the understanding of the Syriac and Arabic-speaking Eastern churches. ... It s strange that Hatch-Redpath doesn t list this
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Blessed be God.

          > From: "James O'Regan" <oregan@...>
          > Subject: Re: A question about Hebrew....
          >
          > Theodore R. Lorah, Jr. wrote:
          >
          > > Yes, Mary is equivalent to Miriam, and jastro, BDB, etc. are the standard
          > > Hebrew lexicons. I looked up Miriam, which is the Hebrew original of the
          > > "greekicized" Mary.

          Such would be the understanding of the Syriac and Arabic-speaking
          Eastern churches.

          > Mandlekern has miriam (mem-resh-yod-mem) at Exodus 15:20 only. Brown
          > Driver Briggs has miriam (same spelling) at Ex;. 15:20, 21; Nu.
          > 12:1:4.5:10:10:15:15; 20:1, 26:59; Dt. 24:9; Micah 6:4; I Ch. 4:1
          > 7, 5:29.

          > Hatch Redpath has no listing for maria or mariam for LXX, nor
          > anything for a transliteration of m(a)(i)riam using aleph, iota or
          > upsilon, although is has a mhrion for ksl. (boy I hate
          > transliterations.).

          It's strange that Hatch-Redpath doesn't list this name (you'd think
          people might want to look up Moses' sister from time to time!), but
          looking in the actual LXX text, I see "Mariam" in all the places
          listed. Now, in the gospels we have both form, "Maria" and "Mariam",
          for the same person.

          Am I mising something? Could you kindly explain again why you think
          the following?---

          > the claim for continuity between Hebrew and Christian scripture for
          > the name "Mary" is extra-textual or at least extra-cannonical, 'r
          > something...

          Regards,

          John Burnett
        • James O'Regan
          ... Yeah, ain t it? Next time I opine, I ll forego exclusive reliance on concordances. I ll presume you have it correctly on the identity of person for both
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            asteresplanetai wondered:

            > It's strange that Hatch-Redpath doesn't list this name (you'd think
            > people might want to look up Moses' sister from time to time!), but
            > looking in the actual LXX text, I see "Mariam" in all the places
            > listed. Now, in the gospels we have both form, "Maria" and "Mariam",
            > for the same person.

            Yeah, ain't it? Next time I opine, I'll forego exclusive reliance on
            concordances. I'll presume you have it correctly on the identity of
            person for both names.

            > Am I mising something? Could you kindly explain again why you think
            > the following?---

            Yes, well, now that I see, as you did, the names in LXX, hardly holds
            water, quid?





            James O'Regan
            http://www.jamesoregan.com
            tel 613-824-4706
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.