Chris Weimer

Actually judge, this works best against you. You see, lectior difficilior lectior potior, right? Thus that's +1 for the Greek. Not only that, but then later the Peshitta revisionists of the Old Aramaic saw the text that it made no sense and decided to "correct" it by merely changing a letter and adding negation. That's another +1 for the Greek. You say the Greek translators might have been confused, so I'll give the Aramaic +1 for trying. That's 2-1 Greek wins. Parsimony rules.

spin

You have no argument.

Slight understatement.

Can't you break down and learn the language, rather than using an awful online dictionary that doesn't represent the letters in a decent mode? You could buy an Aramaic dictionary...

Without the negative particle the terms only have one letter difference. This translate to let's ignore the negative and look at the one letter difference between the two things that interest you. Naaa, judge. This isn't an argument.

They still look alike, if you ignore the negative and one could confuse the two, if you ignore the negative.

Well, let's add that r$ynh never occurs in the nt Peshitta. You always have the phrase dl) r$yn, which doesn't particularly look like r$y(h, especially as the former has a final nun to help you differentiate.

No, what you repeatedly ignore is that there is no reason to get to that point in your argument when the premise based on "blameless" doesn't work. It's just like the erroneous gbr) argument. First one has to accept the misinterpretation of gbr) for the argument to work. Without the misinterpretation, you have no argument, just as here without a single word "blameless" there is no argument.

I have already explained the Peshitta text: someone read the Greek as you did and felt they had to rewrite it. (I said: How about the translator doing what you have done, ie you don't like the Greek text so you rewrite it to suit your understanding.)

There is no reason for one to die for a righteous man: his place in the end of days is assured.

And the Greek is still fundamentally irrelevant to your philological quagmire. You provide the wrong candidate for the conjecture.

As I said: it must, though not reflecting the Greek, be the source of the Greek anyway for some obscure reason, best known to your subconscious.

I said the last phrase, because your position is not based on logic. You went on, knowing the error and have merely attempted to minimise the damage without and not contemplate the error.

:wave:


spin

judge

One could confuse them even taking the negative particle into consideration.

Here is Romans 5:7 in Aramaic followed by "Wicked" and "blame".

They are all but identical.



Here is blameless with the negative particle. Still close enough to confuse a translator or precipitate an error.

spin

First, judge, as I pointed out, negative particles are rife in the Aramaic, they are necessarily throughout the text. It's not like one could miss it.

Second, the meaning you were hoping for was actually given by dl) r$yn (See Phil. 3:6, Col. 1:22, 1 Thes 2:10 etc.), which is even further from r$(h than what you are trying to supply.

But let us assume that the hypothetical translator read "blemish" instead of "wicked", how can it, without the negative, give the meaning you desire to underlie the Greek?

It seems pointless to your initial discussion, whether "blame" and "wicked" is in the Aramaic text. Neither can provide the Greek text. Your hoped for source of confusion would certainly not have been confused.

This last post of yours adds nothing to your claim.


spin