graymouser

judge:

Your hypothesis seems to rely on multiple Greek translations that quibble on this or that word, but always have a sound basis in Aramaic. While I'm not a text expert, I know enough about translations to safely say that this is not what we should expect from numerous Greek renderings of a single Aramaic source. If the alleged "translations" fit the same syntax and word choices (except for certain word-variations), which I think the Greek Gospels pretty well do, that is sound evidence against a hypothesis that they were translated multiply by different hands. What we would see, instead, is a complete and regular divergence within the text - something like comparing the plethora of modern English Bible translations with each other. I don't think the Greek versions have that level of variance, so I don't think your hypothesis has much of a place to stand.

-Wayne

Amaleq13

Apparently, you didn't read my second post since your statement above ignores it and you don't answer my questions. Without knowing how many other options were available to the translator, I'm not sure whether he would have to know about any variations but simply noting two would seem to be sufficient motivation for him to choose a term that covers as many meanings as possible.

spin has pointed out the the common Greek word for your example has just as many meanings as the Aramaic word. This, alone, is sufficient to establish that your argument is specious.

Diogenes the Cynic

Moreover, even if it could be proven that John was originally composed in Aramaic, that is still a long way from proving that it was written by "Yukhanan the disciple of Jesus," as Judge claims.

spin

You remind me of the protagonist in the film Memento.

Why not pick up a copy of the latest Greek apparatus for the nt and just look at the differences between the codices.

And there is nothing miraculous about the paucity of Hebrew prepositions.

I do note the attempt at irony.

That's plain silly. The Aramaic preposition is not a single word: it is merely a prefix in this case. The b- is a simple locative and covers a multitude of evils, such as "on", "in", "at" and then loads of idiomatic developments.

Then once the translator gets the idea of the Greek, he says it in his words. That's only natural.

The various Aramaic texts may have been translated from different Greek texts, but it is not necessary. I don't know enough about the variants.

If Greek Jn was translated from Aramaic, why doesn't the Peshitta have the difference between "my father" and "the father" or better still, why does the Greek have it, for an Aramaic original can't explain it?

While we are here, why does Luke in its Lucan material use "lawyers" (nomikoi) while in the shared material with Mt uses "scribes" (grammateis), while the Peshitta simply uses spr'. The answer of course is that Luke was composed in Greek from various sources which reflect the difference in Greek, but got lost in the Aramaic translation.

Why did both Matt and Mark choose to translate byt hrwds, not as "house of Herod", but as "Herodians"? Is it just a coincidence that the translators (obviously different because one had a much better grasp of Greek) both chose to use this hybrid from Latin?

You would still use this argument if you didn't know the pedigree of "Lord of the Rings" so it says nothing. It makes no attempt to grapple with the text itself. You're only offering, "please may it be the same with the Peshitta!?" :banghead:

Nice try. Too bad you didn't deal with either the Marcan or Matthean material.

And I still love the transliteration of evaggelion into Aramaic at the beginning of Mark, instead of using a Semitic form such as the Hebrew B$R. Need I say that it is a sure sign of a translation into Aramaic from Greek? Naaa.


spin

B_Sharp

A good question is can a historical document copied a few centuries after the original still be accurate?? I believe the answer is yes.

I recall reading a translation of the dead sea scrolls specifically to answer this. Copying of copies apparently is accurate, just not to the modern standards of DVDs and scanners. The newly discovered dead sea scroll book of the old testament was 1000 years before our current bible book. Through two translations into English, the old and the older, the only 'errors' were displacement of sentence clauses. EG. "The dog barks at a sound" vs "A sound made the dog bark". Also, I noticed no major forged additions.

COPYING INTEGRITY over CENTURIES
Admittedly, a more rigorous historical comparison would be interesting if someone knows of any. But a quick check shows that 1000 years of copying and translating stills maintains a high degree of historical integrity.

ok, now back to the historical scholars ...

judge

More evidence John was written in Aramaic and later translated (on more than one occaision) into greek.

In John 11:31 some Jews were consoling Mary after the death of Lazarus, and when they saw that she quickly rose up and went out, they followed her...

The Stephens and Scrivener Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority text have legontev (saying)"She is going to the tomb that she may weep there."

The Alexandrian text has doxantev (thinking).

The Aramaic word here could either mean thinking or saying. Hence a translator translating this from Aramaic to Greek would have to choose which menaing to insert. Either makes sense.

One translator went with legontev, and another greek translator went with doxantev.
Pronunciation: (Eastern) SB,aRO (Western) SB,aRO
Meaning:: consider, think, suppose, hope


sbr N sbr)
1 Palestinian,Syr opinion
2 Syr suspicion
3 Palestinian + )pyn > sbr@)pyn N

sbr#2 N sbr)
1 JLAGal,CPA,Sam,Syr hope

sbr V
011 BibArDan,Palestinian,Syr to expect
012 Palestinian,Syr to hope
013 JLATg to intend
014 Palestinian,CPA,Sam,Syr to think
015 Palestinian to meditate
016 Palestinian,JBA to understand
017 JLAGal,JBA to be of the opinion
018 JBA to reason
019 JBA to agree with
041 Syr to be considered
042 Syr to seem
043 JLAGal,JBA %mstbrh% it is reasonable
044 Palestinian to be understood
021 Syr to hope
022 Syr to be of the opinion
031 Syr to hope
032 Syr to think
033 Syr to expect
034 Syr to supplicate
035 Syr to make to hope
036 Syr to make to think
037 Palestinian,JBA to explain :wave:

sbr#2 V
011 Syr to bring news
012 Syr to preach the gospel
051 Syr to receive news
052 Syr to be announced.

Thanks and credit to paul Younan of peshitta.org for this example. :notworthy

Note also that this never occurs the other way around. Never ever.

Never ever do we find variants in the eastern peshitta! Let alone variants where the greek word just coincidentally had two meaning, and even more coincidenatally had the two meanings expressed by the variants.


This kind of phenomonon only happens one way. It happens time and time again in places where the greek translators had to choose between two or more ways of translating on Aramaic word or phrase.

Amaleq13

Hence a translator translating from Greek to Aramaic and confronted with two possibilities would have to arbitrarily choose one over the other or choose a word in Aramaic that covers both meanings.

I've asked this before but, perhaps, you'll provide an answer this time. How old is the oldest copy of the peshitta and how old are the Greek texts?

Just to be clear, are you asserting that there are no examples of Aramaic translations of variant Greek texts where the translator has chosen a single word to cover all the variants?

judge

Wow! It's amazing thoughthat on so many occaisions the translator had all the variants before him and was able to find Aramaic words that just happened to fit all the meanings.


As I understand it the oldest complete copy of the peshitta is of comparable age to the oldest complete copy of the greek NT.

There are no fragments and partial mss of the peshitta to compare with the fragments and partial mss we find in the greek.
The tradition of the COE was not to keep damaged copies of their scripture. They were copied and the damaged ones destroyed.

This is the same reason we do not have fragments of the HB, apart from the DSS. But these were never meant to survive in thsi condition.

These people had a different view of their scriptures to the greek speakers. The greek speakers saw no problem with keeping old scraps.

I have a friendin the COE who attended a non denomimational church service on one occaision. I think it was some kind of modern "megachurch".
He found it a bit strange that people were putting their bible on the floor. Not that it is good or bad but the tradition in the COE would not have seen this happen. They just had a different approach.


I'm not sure I understand your question. There are a several aramaic/syriac versions of the NT. The peshitta is the original used by believers who existed from earliest times outside the Roman Empire.
Following the Christological disputes at various councils within the Empire those believrs inside the Roman Empire (or controlled from there) began to regard the so called "Nestorians" as heretical :devil1: :devil3: :angry: .

So several new translation were done at various times from Greek to Aramaic/Syriac with particular attention to keep the theology "orthodox". There is also the peshitto used by the SOC was not a new translation but a revision of the peshitta.

One can easily see that Hebrews 2:9 was changed and Acts chapter 20 to make the theology more "monophysite".

As I mentioned above though the peshitta is the original and my claim is that no variants can be demonstrated, none at all, from one peshitta text to another.
The greek mss all vary as they are all translations.

Amaleq13

Why do you feel it necessary to exaggerate in your responses by referring to "so many" when we've only considered two and "all" when the most recent example, according to you, only involves two variants? It makes your threshold of amazement seem unreasonably low.

Given what we've learned about the first example, it doesn't seem terribly surprising that an Aramaic translator had a word in his language that was just as flexible in meaning as a similar word in Greek.

That there exists a word in Aramaic that means both "thinking" and "saying", likewise, doesn't seem all that astounding to me. The difference in the concepts is fairly subtle since our thoughts are essentially private speech. I wonder if there is a similar one in Greek?

I really don't understand your surprise that someone fluent in Aramaic would be familiar enough with the language to identify a word flexible enough to cover variants that differ only slightly in meaning.

Exactly how many examples do you have and do they all involve similarly subtle variations in Greek?

What are the known facts upon which, I presume, your understanding is founded? Beyond extant texts, what is the evidence for age with regard to Aramaic texts? It is my understanding, based on an exchange with Yuri, that, except for the brief reference from Papias, there is no evidence of Aramaic texts as old as the Greek.

It was in response to your assertion:

"This kind of phenomonon only happens one way."

I'm asking if you are basing this assertion on a known absence of any instance where an Aramaic translator has taken text variants and chosen a word to cover all of them or is it exaggerated rhetoric?

Text variation seems to me to be analogous to genetic variation in nature. We should expect a greater degree of variation in texts that have existed the longest and been copied the most. The process of preservation you describe being used for the peshitta prevents this natural result and is the reason for the state of the evidence you describe. In other words, simply considering whether variation exists in these texts does not establish primacy.

judge

Ok, this phenomenon happens quite a bit more than we have looked at, so when we consider all occaissions it would naturally be harder to believe. But yes if it only concerned two texts it would not be as difficult.




Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22) that:










Wewll I am only referring to the peshitta, and the peshitta is not known to have been translated.


This seems circular. The variants are mostly the result of translation errors or ambiguities
We should not expect to see these in a text that has not been translated but retains it's original form.