judge

Click here to again see the text.

The greek variant text that reads his treasure and not her treasure.

What part for this do you dispute Dr Gibson?

The explanation for this variation is that the original Aramaic could read either his treasure or her treasure.

We have no other explanation for how this could come to be. Except possibly that by sheer coincidence right where the Aramaic could read either masculine or feminine the greek texts reflect the ambiguity.

Yes, this sort of example (and there are many many more) are perhaps troubling for those who have spent years studying NT greek. After all who wants to find out they have been studying the wrong language.

If the peshitta does underlie the greek then quite naturally, those who have spent years studying NT greek or hope to produce papers relying on greek being the original language might be very resistant to the very idea. This is understandable.

But interest in the peshitta is growing. It is to be expected that younger fresher minds when they examine the evidence will be less emotional about this. Naturally those with a prior commitment to the greek texts will have at least some emotional interest in hoping they are on the right horse.

Jeffrey Gibson

That this is the Latin of Acts 8:27 in Codex D.

What Aramaic, let alone the question begging "original Aramaic"? The Peshitta is in Syriac.

There, to my knowledge, only one Greek text that has the reading ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης αὐτοῦ, and that is Codex D. All others have ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης αὐτῆς . But D's Latin rendering of this verse shows that the copyist was not copying/translating a text in which the pronoun in question was either masculine or feminine (do you know what the gender of D's Latin counterpart of his αὐτοῦ is?). Given this, the idea that the only explanation for his reproducing the Greek of Acts 8:27 as he does is that he is translating from the Syriac is ludicrous.

Perhaps you can show me on the basis of the assumption of Peshitta primacy and your knowledge of Syriac why it is that at Acts 8:26 D has Ἀναστὰς πορεύθητι κατὰ μεσημβρίαν as opposed to ἀνάστηθι καὶ πορεύου κατὰ μεσημβρίαν. Is this variant to be explained, let alone solely explained, by reference to what the Peshitta reads at this point.

While were at it, can you tell me if you yourself read Syriac and Greek?

Jeffrey

judge

In other words you are not disputing anything I wrote. You are merely pointing out some information without showing any relevance at all.

Dr Gibson you need to demonstrate why this must be relevant.



Dr Gibson Syriac is a form of Aramaic.


All you are doing is making an assertion here, not demonstrating anything.

Here is the point. You have not shown that the greek version of D is related to the Latin version.
This is crucial for your attempted explanation.

Dr Gibson, as I pointed out. It is a very good explanation on the basis that the variation occurs precisely at the exact place where the peshitta was ambiguous. What are the chances of that?
You need to ask us to believe this was just an amazing coincidence.
Secondly as you have not yet demonstrated why the Latin reading must be relevant. Can you explain why it must be?

So until you do we only have one explanation.

judge

This variant has nothing to do with the Aramaic. The two greek words, noon and south, look similar so that variant is explained by that fact. A later scribe made the change because of that.

Not every variation in greek texts is due to the underlying Aramaic, but many of them are.

This is the real strength of the peshitta primacist argument. Time and time again when the Aramaic is ambiguous, when the Aramaic has two meanings, both these meanings show up at these exact places in the greek texts!

What would be a powerful argument is if you found two peshitta mss, one which read south and one which read midday.
This would show they must have been translated from the greek.

Jeffrey Gibson

Precisely. Which is a good indication that the Greek text of Acts in D is not based upon the Peshitta.

You know this how?

And your criterion for determining which is which is what?

And where's your answer to my previously ignored question of whether you read Syriac and Greek?

If that's the case, then we should expect a far greater number of the Greek witnesses to Acts 8:27 to show this.

Why then does this not occur in any other Greek (or Latin) MSS witness to Acts 8:27 except apparently D -- which, curiously, when it's copyist renders the text into Latin, does not reproduce the "ambiguity" of the Peshitta's text or give any indication of an awareness that there was such an ambiguity?

But n point of fact, it is not at al certain that the meaning that the Syriac pronoun is capable of bearing appears in the Codex D rendering of the pronoun at the end the expression ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης?

What gender do you think αὐτοῦ is there?

Jeffrey

judge

If you think this is a good indication then you are free to think this. However you logic seems obviously flawed.
Just becasue every problem in the greek texts is not due to an underlying Aramaic text does not mean that some of them are not. Do you see?



It is an explanation. There are many things we don't know with 100% certainty. So yes you caught me out I dont know with 100% certainty this is how it happned, but is it an explanation.



Why?

Who knows. We dont know that the same scribe made both translations, although for some unexplained reason you seem to be assuming this happened. Drop the assumption and the alleged problem gets dropped as well.

Jeffrey Gibson

No, since I'm asking only about D and why, if its scribe was basing his text on the Peshitta, the text of Acts 8:27 does not reflect the Peshitta reading of that text all the way through the verse -- a question you have avoided answering and are dodging once again..

In any case, I note that you still haven't answered my questions about whether you read Syriac and Greek and what gender the αὐτοῦ in D's expression ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης αὐτοῦ is. Why is that?

No it does not, since the Greek of D's rendering of 8:27 says the same thing as does D's Latin rendering of that text.

You don't read Latin either, do you.

Jeffrey

judge

So...as explained in the OP. The greek of D contains a variant which can be derived from the ambiguity of the peshitta .
You claim that this ambiguity was not rendered by the copiest when put into the Latin of D



But now you claim that the Latin of D says the same thing as the greek of D.

Dr. Gibson in the OP I provided pictures of the peshitta text and the Bezan greek text of the same passage.

You have presented nothing WRT the Latin.

If you have some evidence then provide it.

If we bring any evidence out in the open then all are able to examine it and make up their own minds.

But if you wish to continue, as Spin did with .."I have evidence but Im not going to show anyone", then I guess I cant stop you.

So in the absence of such I think I'll leave this thread.

All the best to you anyway.

spin

You don't want evidence, judge. We've already established this. You don't know the languages after all these years. You simply cite other people's (or person's) work for wont of anything better, work that you can only understand rudimentarily at best.

You don't want to show how a 6th c. manuscript can be better than a number of earlier ones, although you need to do so to justify your conclusions.

In the past I have shown many examples of Greek words simply transliterated into Syriac as sign of the Greek being the precursor, and at times Latin words from Mark transliterated into Greek then into Syriac to show the direction of movement of effort. I've shown even theologically loaded words still end up in Syriac from Greek. You've grubbed together words often already in the Greek language or ones that are color added to the story.

Looking at the particular verse in Acts, gaza is the Greek form of the word used for "treasure" in the context of eastern potentates. The Aramaic form, however, is GNZ as seen in Ezra 5:17. It is also the form found in later Aramaic work, such as the Yerushalmi Targum Deuteronomy, 31:16, as GNYZ -- this is a Judean form. There is a continuity of form from the time Ezra's Aramaic was written to the time of the targum. The form GZ) can actually be found late after the contact between Greek and Aramaic traditions, for example in Bavli Shabbat 63a, but there is no early support for such a form.

At the time of the writing of Acts, gaza had been in Greek for at least 200 years, as witnessed by Polybius. So, when we see the form in the Syriac without the /n/, we can only assume that it was by way of Greek influence, ie the translators, confused by the Greek, used the Greek form in Syriac, rather than the Semitic alternative. The only simple way to account for the non-Semitic form of the name in Peshitta Acts is through the Greek. Just one of the many Greek forms found in the Peshitta.

While there is good evidence that even the loanword indirectly from Indo-Iranian, gaza, has influenced the Syriac of the Peshitta, you are left with a conjecture as to why autou is the possessive rather than auths.

Do you have any idea how the codex was reproduced? Was it copied by sight or was it dictated or was it arrived at some other way? If it was dictated what sort of mistakes did the reader make? Do you know where it was reproduced? (There have been theories from Antioch to Gaul.) You cannot answer this sort of thing because you start from a position of not knowing the languages involved, so you can't form an opinion. You can only believe. This is why I talked early on about a smilie showing the blind leading the blind into the ditch.


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

No. All that can be said is that in its witness to the Greek text of Acts 8:27 D has a reading -- αὐτοῦ instead of αὐτῆς at the end of ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης-- that has been claimed by Peshitta primacists as reflecting the ambiguity of the gender of a pronoun word that appears in the Peshitta's rendering of Acts 8:27. But this claim is based on a question begging assumption about what gender of this αὐτοῦ is.

So once again, I ask you what is the gender of this αὐτοῦ? And why do you keep avoiding answering this question?

I do no such thing. I claim (1) that the Latin of 8:28 in D is in no way the equivalent to, or in any way reflects, what we find in the Peshitta rendering of that verse since the gender of the pronoun that is the Latin text's counterpart to the αὐτοῦ of D's Greek text is neither male nor female and (2) that there's no evidence that the Latin of 8:28 in D is a translation of, or is in any way influenced by, the Peshitta .


Well, it does, doesn't it.

And I ask again, what is the gender of the pronoun that appears at the end of the picture of the Greek text D that you provided. Do you know?

Nor have you, despite Spin's repeated request that you do so and my questions about whether you know what the Latin says. You don't, do you.

And once more I ask: do you read Syriac and/or Greek and/or Latin?

Jeffrey