judge

Are you serious...lol

Funny that the greek version contains a greek word??

Guess what the aramaic version contains an aramaic word!

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

Doctor X

I correctly considered the lack of serious willingness to consider evidence contrary to his assumptions and the waste of time it would be to correct it.

Therefore, I gather I shall wait, in vain, for the peer-reviewed paper that supports such an "extraordinary claim."

--J.D.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Judge,

There are thousands of passages where the Peshitta and the Old Syriac go together against the standard canonical Greek.

Quote:

Here are eight examples of the OS following the greek and not the peshitta. http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1234.html

OK, let's look at the case above. The Parable of the Two Sons (Mt 21:28-31) is one of the most complicated cases in NT Textual Criticism. There are about a dozen versions of this Parable in different old MSS.

Nobody can claim to have said the last word on this one, I assure you...

Quote:

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1237.html

OK, Mk 11:19.

The Old Syriac Sinaiticus MS, together with the Byzantine text (KJV), reads here:
"And when evening had come, _he_ would go outside of the city."

The Peshitta, together with the mainstream Egyptian Greek text, reads:
"And after it became evening, _they_ went outside of the city."

So, yes, in this case, Paul Younan did prove that the Peshitta goes against the Byzantine text in Mk 11:19, whereas the OS is with the Byzantine.

No, the Peshitta is not a revision of the Old Syriac Sinaiticus MS. And anyone who might have said such a thing is simply unaware of the facts.

In general, I don't think that the Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac Sinaiticus MS "to bring it more in line with the Imperial Byzantine Greek text". And I never thought this way, in any case... (Myself, I think that both the OS Sinaiticus and the Pesh ultimately depend on a common source, which was some still earlier Old Syriac MS.)

So IMHO the only thing that Paul proved here was something that's already quite well known in Syriac Textual Criticism.

Quote:

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1239.html

Now, Mk 12:23.

Again, in this case, the OS Sinaiticus MS goes with the Byz, and adds the phrase "when they shall rise" to this verse, while the Pesh doesn't feature this phrase. But when we look into Aland's Textual Apparatus, we learn that this phrase "when they shall rise" (= otan anastwsin) is _also_ omitted by a whole bunch of other Greek MSS, including the Greek Bezae, as well as by the Old Latin MSS.

In fact, in his Greek text, Aland puts this phrase in square brackets, which means that the reading is uncertain in this case.

I conclude that, while Paul Y. again proves his case, that case wasn't really something that was made by any reputable Textual Scholar. It was just a misconception on somebody's part.

Quote:

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1244.html

Now, Luke 24:36.

(Young's Literal Translation Lk 24:36) And as they are speaking these things, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith to them, `Peace -- to you;`

So, in this case, the Pesh also adds the following words of Jesus, "It is I, don't be afraid", whereas both the OS and the standard Greek texts omit this phrase (the Byz and the Egyptian texts are identical here).

So, yes, this is an interesting case where the Pesh does go against all canonical Greek texts of Luke. But, OTOH, some other Greek MSS also have this phrase, and quite a few Old Latin MSS also. And we even find this same addition in the Latin Vulgate!

(Latin Vulgate 24:36) dum haec autem loquuntur Iesus stetit in medio eorum et dicit eis pax vobis _ego sum nolite timere_.

Ego sum nolite timere = "It is I, don't be afraid"

So, myself, I wouldn't necessarily describe this Peshitta variant as self-evidently very early.

And so on with the other cases that you listed...

Regards,

Yuri.

Clivedurdle

It seems Paul - and by the sound of it - many people were bi-lingual in Greek and Aramaic. Thinking about the historical demarcations - Rome with its strong Greek heritage and the various Persian Syrian groupings, and the need for people to communicate with each other, this makes sense, especially in the crossroads of the Middle East.

It feels like a later occurence to "fix" things into Greek or Aramaic versions.

What if they weren't translated but written down in both versions at the same time, much as we do now with European Union documents? We have an example of Paul speaking in Greek and Aramaic. Assuming he existed and wrote this stuff, why not have two versions at the same time? Did he write it himself or did he dictate? If so who says he didn't do both versions coterminously, translating as he went to two different scribes?

The concepts Paul is trying to get over - Christ the redeemer etc , would automatically result in chaos and mayhem as anyone tries to describe what he is on about in a different language.

We must remember that because someone can speak one or more language, they are not neccesarily able to read and write in them. If someone else is doing the writing, we immediately have complexity, like Newton and the three body problem.

spin

This is certainly incorrect. "blameless" in Peshitta Syriac is best rendered "without blame", ie dl' r$yn, in which dl' supplies the negation of r$yn, ie "blame". See 1 Cor 1:8, Philip 3:6, 1 Thes 5:23, etc. See also Acts 23:28-9 for r$yn without negation, where it has verbal force meaning "blame, accuse, incriminate".

How about something a little better researched, judge?


spin

spin

Better still, how about it if you, judge, learn something about what you are trying to talk about, ie the philology, so that you can judge the quality of the schlock you get before you post it?


spin

judge

Well let's assume you are right. And this is a big assumption as you have will readily admit you have made some awful blunders here with Aramaic previously and have no experience with it .
So even though you who have no experience with Aramaic and you think you know how best to translate this phrase, let's assume you are correct.

Don't you see that the same argument still holds. The greek still makes no sense and the Aramaic does?

Here is the aramaic. One can easily see how a translator could confuse two words with only one letter difference.


ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? (Rasheya) - but the ܪܫÜ?Ü¢Ü? ("Reshyana")

Just one letter is different.

This letter is in the same place in the word.

The trajectory of this error is from Aramaic into Greek not the other way.

You are still avoiding any attempt at an explanation of why the greek makes no sense.
Is is just a pure coincidence that the greek makes no sense?

Here is the reading that makes no sense.


Why on earth would die for a good man but not for a righteous man?

The only explanation is that the greek translator confused the two words. These two words only differing by one letter.

ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? (Rasheya) and ܪܫÜ?Ü¢Ü? ("Reshyana")

spin

Would you stop the sophistry, judge?

Don't you see that your source was simply wrong, just as they were with GBR)?

Your fiddling with the Greek text doesn't change that. Without the misinterpretation which provides the supposed Syriac source for the Greek error, you have no case whatsoever.

And your hope that the negative dl) might not impact on the Greek despite it being used several hundred times in the Peshitta nt is unreasonable.

My job isn't to make the Greek be anything. It is to look at the evidence of your case for what it's worth.

Another hokey Peshitta priority argument down the drain.


spin

judge

Hmmm.. well why do you continue to ignore the mistranslation.

ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? (Rasheya) - and ܪܫÜ?Ü¢Ü? ("Reshyana")

The greek translator confused these two words.

spin

I have shown that there is no mistranslation. There is no confusion of these words. r$yn doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You are in error. It cannot have been the source of the strange Greek of Rm 5:7 as it means the opposite of what you want.

Failed yet again.


spin