judge

Hi Peter,
I think we have no choice but to use the peshitta/o.
The peshitto (western) differs in two places from the peshitta.

Acts chapt 20:28 reads Church od God instaed of church of Christ.Hebrews 2:9 reads "by the grace of God " rather than "apart from God".

Interestingly here Jerome(?) quotes the peshitta version which only occurs IIRC in three late greek mss.

The old syriac mss are not much help, as they only contain incomplete copies of the gospels and acts.

Peter Kirby

What edition? Where is it published? Also, which translation, and who is the translator?

thanks,
Peter Kirby

judge

Peter,
Would murdocks translation at www.peshitta.com and the syriac version online there be suitable?

Yuri Kuchinsky

judge,

There's nothing difficult here to believe. The Syriac text probably dates from ca 200 CE. Our earliest Greek MS of Romans 5:7 probably dates from 4th century (P46, our earliest Pauline MS, doesn't have Romans 5:7). Thus, there's more than enough time for a late Greek editor to do his work, and to make this change.

And if this late Greek editor was influential enough, then his editorial changes would have been adopted by all surviving Greek MSS.

They are probably the very same passages, for the most part...

This is yet another big mistake that the Peshitta primacists often make. They typically denounce the Greek texts as "corrupt", but ignore the fact that the Peshitta _typically agrees with the very same Greek texts_ where it happens to disagree with the Old Syriac.

So either you like the Greek or you don't like it -- make up your mind. Because if you really dislike the Greek, then you should embrace the Old Syriac, since it is much further away from the Greek, as compared to the Peshitta...

Yes, it reads differently, and is easier to understand because of that.

Best,

Yuri.

judge

When you say typically do you mean more than 50%?
If not then what do you mean?

I have not said I "dislike" the greek.

Can have a look at some evidence for your claims?

Bernard Muller

Darby Romans5:6-7
6 for we being still without strength, in [the] due time Christ has died for [the] ungodly.
7 For scarcely for [the] just [man] will one die, for perhaps for [the] good [man] some one might also dare to die;"

NOTE A:
Let's notice that "man" does not appear in the Greek. In the other 5 instances of root "molis" in the NT, the meaning is "hardly" rather than "rarely", even if, according to Strong, both are valid. In Ro5:7, it is the only time Paul used the word. I think "hardly" is more adequate here (see next note). So now we have, as likely thought by Paul:
"Christ has died for ungodly. For hardly for just [godly] will one [Christ] die"

NOTE B: I think 7a is an extension/complement of 6b: Christ died for sinners, because there is no need of sacrifice for the just (righteous) ones.
Then Paul realized his confusing mumble could give the wrong impression; he tried to correct that by 7b, acknowledging, yes, it happens (& justifiably so!) that, for a good person, someone will died for (like a soldier for the emperor! see Ro13:1-7).

NOTE C: There is at least another instance where Paul goofed up and, immediately after, backpaddled in order to limit the damage:
From one of my pages (on 1Corinthians) and edited:

Women have to cover their head:
Paul, letting his Jewishness take hold of him (and likely revealing his personal views), started on the wrong foot by being very discriminating against the other gender, and putting women much lower than men. He realized the error and, from 11:10, tried to reestablish complete equality between the two genders. Then he attempted to find some other argument (away from Genesis2:7,20b-23) but went quickly into conflict with what he said earlier in 11:5-6. There, an uncovered woman is shameful, as just like having her head shaved, but later, at 11:15, a woman's hair is her covering & glory. An exasperated Paul had to suggest the true reason (11:16): in Gentile Christian gatherings, women with uncovered hair would look bad if observed by visiting Jewish Christians.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
[Christ is inferior to God, and a woman is (way) below a man]

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
[does what follows represent the personal views of Paul on women? Likely so]

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man [Ge2:20-23]. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
[Oops and more Oops!!! Then complete about face: at that point, Paul probably understood that if the previous statements were not "corrected", he will lose the support of many women, including the very generous ones of Philippi]

10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
[??? which reason? Suddenly, the hair covering becomes a symbol of authority! And now, it's time to repair the damage caused by 11:7-9]

11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord [back to equality!].
12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman [back to equality again!]; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
[Paul likely knew he was contradicting himself (see 10:5-6 "...with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved") and getting trapped into a mess (now the woman's long hair is considered a head covering!). Certainly, he was not going anywhere. The time had come to forget about intellectual arguments using dubious logic & controversial basis and be more direct:]

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Let's not forget it was not easy to erase written words in these days! And furthermore, Paul was dictating his letters (1Co16:21, Ro16:22) and did not want to admit a boo boo to his scribe. Instead he had to go into some immediate subtle cover-up.

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

Or else, Paul didn't really write (or dictate) any of that stuff...

Thus, all these obvious self-contradictions and incongruities would have been the result of later editorial activity.

As Dr. J. J. Griesbach, my Textual guru , wrote way back in 1771,

"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book."

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear judge,

Yes, I would say that typically the Peshitta gospels are a lot closer to the Greek than the OS gospels.

The examples are dime a dozen, they are just about in every passage. It is only sometimes that we see the reverse.

And while you, personally, may not dislike the Greek, it is my impression that quite a few Peshitta primacists do seem to dislike the Greek.

All the best,

Yuri.

judge

Yes, peshita primacists do tend to dislike the greek. Personally my favourite is "the message" (in modern english).

But , do you have an example of the peshitta following the Old syriac against the greek?

Here are eight examples of the OS following the greek and not the peshitta.

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1234.html

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

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


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


http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1254.html

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1535.html


http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1536.html

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1245.html

Doctor X

Whilst wondering about a book on child sacrifice--with the screaming brats in the café about me wishing to "bring back that ol' time religion!"--I stumbl'd upon this:

Funny that Paul should use a Greek term rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic.

FYI

--J.D.

Reference:

Jon D. Levenson. The Death of and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: the Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.