Soul Invictus

Although the various NT writers exhibit on several occasions, an inability to accurately account for events in a consistent manner between themselves, I'm wondering how the original Greek or Aramaic? versions of Jesus' words would read. I understand the numerous translation problems that were posed earlier on and I'm wondering to what extent this may have affected how the ancient scribes translated Jesus' words.

For example, in John 14:6 it states "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." I'm wondering how this would have read in it's original tongue.

*Basically I'm looking for did Jesus state that HE was the ONLY way explicitly(according to the original version) or was this more so inferred during the text being translated over.

Invictus

Haran

Yes. According to the Greek of John 14:6, Jesus stated that "HE was the ONLY way".


John 14:6:

Says to him Jesus {does}
LEGEI AYTW hO IHSOYS

I am
EGW EIMI
(The "I" here is not needed in Greek. It is added for emphasis.)

the way and the truth and the life
H hODOS KAI H ALHQEIA KAI H ZWH

no one {lit. not one}
OYDEIS

comes to the father
ERXETAI PROS TON PATERA

except {lit. if not}
EI MH

through me
DI EMOY


According to NA27, the only difference between manuscripts is the omission of the article "hO" before Jesus which is an understandable accidental omission and not a translational problem.

Reuben Swanson's NT Greek Manuscripts shows that one late 12th century miniscule (157) accidentally omits "KAI H ALHTHEIA" (and the truth). This is not a problem due to the overwhelming early evidence for this text, but I thought you might appreciate knowing all the evidence.

Asha'man

You might want to check out the Blue Letter Bible

It does a nice job of presenting the original language, a concordance, and a variety of translations.

Of course, it helps to speak ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, but this is a start.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Haran.

But also, let us not forget about the ancient Aramaic gospels. According to the Sinaiticus MS (Curetonian is missing for this passage), Jesus says,

"No man comes unto _my_ Father, but by me."

While the standard Greek says,

"No man comes unto _the_ Father, but by me."

So we can see that, in the Aramaic, it's "my Father", as opposed to "the Father" in the Greek.

This might be significant in some way, although I haven't really looked into this matter.

All the best,

Yuri.

Haran

Hi Yuri. Great to have someone who really knows the material to discuss these things with.

Just to clarify for others' benefit, that's the Syriac Sinaiticus (Sy(S)) which is different from the great uncial MS "aleph" better known as Codex Sinaiticus.

Yuri, I couldn't find this variant mentioned in the sources with which I am familiar:

UBS4
NA27
Swanson
Tichendorf John 14:6
Von Soden John 14:6

These sources regularly list the Syriac variants. Do you know why they do not happen to list this particular variant? Or have I just missed the reference buried down in the apparatus somewhere?

Also, I'm not sure how proficient you are with the actual Syriac (I am not), but I was curious if you might transliterate and give a very literal translation of the verse?

I happened to find Sy(S) on TC's website:

Sy(S) - John 14:6

If you can let me know where you found that variant, too, that would be great learning information for me! Thanks!

I'm not sure I see much significance to this, personally. The "my father" could have been some sort of scribal slip where they accidentally copied (or translated) the "MOY" from the next verse (v. 7), where it reads "TON PATERA MOY". What do you think?

Finally, I think I can buy the fact that some version of Matthew may have been in Aramaic (thinking specifically of Saint Jerome). In fact, I have long had a problem with Marcan priority. I also think it is possible that the sayings of Mark might have originally been in Aramaic. However, I don't think I can accept that Luke or John were ever originally in Aramaic (just don't ask me to explain why ).

Haran

bump

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Haran,

And I'm pleased to find someone who's interested in the Aramaic version of this passage...

Quote:

Just to clarify for others' benefit, that's the Syriac Sinaiticus (Sy(S)) which is different from the great uncial MS "aleph" better known as Codex Sinaiticus. Yuri, I couldn't find this variant mentioned in the sources with which I am familiar: UBS4 NA27 Swanson Tichendorf John 14:6 Von Soden John 14:6 These sources regularly list the Syriac variants. Do you know why they do not happen to list this particular variant? Or have I just missed the reference buried down in the apparatus somewhere?

No, these sources do NOT regularly list all Syriac variants. And they don't list regularly even all the important ones!

So it's not surprising in the least that they fail to list this particular variant, which may or may not be all that important by itself.

Also, you didn't mention Aland's Synopsis. There's the Greek/English bilingual version, and the Greek only version. Actually, the Greek only version lists more variants than either UBS4, or NA27, or the Aland's Greek/English version. And no, it doesn't list this particular variant either.

Quote:

Also, I'm not sure how proficient you are with the actual Syriac (I am not), but I was curious if you might transliterate and give a very literal translation of the verse?

Here we go.

l) -- )n$ -- )t) -- lwt -- )by,
no -- man -- come -- to -- (my) father

)l) -- )n -- by
but -- by -- me

In this case, "my" in "my father" is expressed by the suffix to the word "father" = "aba". (I tried to add spaces to above, but it didn't work.)

Quote:

I happened to find Sy(S) on TC's website: Sy(S) - John 14:6 If you can let me know where you found that variant, too, that would be great learning information for me! Thanks!

I got this variant from my own copy of Burkitt's original 1904 edition of the Old Syriac gospels, which includes the full translation.

But also, you can find the transliteration of the OS gospels at,

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/text_browse.html

From this screen, check the box "Syriac", then click on "Submit Query", and you will see the Old Syriac gospels listed at the top. It takes a bit of figuring out how the system works, though.

Quote:

I'm not sure I see much significance to this, personally. The "my father" could have been some sort of scribal slip where they accidentally copied (or translated) the "MOY" from the next verse (v. 7), where it reads "TON PATERA MOY". What do you think?

Actually, I don't think that this is just an isolated instance. In my experience, the Aramaic texts use "my father" instead of "the father" rather often. So this seems to be part of a pattern, and might be significant in this regard.

But also, I've already studied the locution "his disciples" (in the Aramaic texts) vs. "the disciples" (Greek) and this is definitely a consistent pattern in the Aramaic. See,

Jesus and his disciples (Jn 6:11)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/hdis.htm

Quote:

Finally, I think I can buy the fact that some version of Matthew may have been in Aramaic (thinking specifically of Saint Jerome). In fact, I have long had a problem with Marcan priority. I also think it is possible that the sayings of Mark might have originally been in Aramaic. However, I don't think I can accept that Luke or John were ever originally in Aramaic (just don't ask me to explain why ).

Well, actually I can accept that the earliest version of Jn was written in Greek. But at the same time, this still wouldn't mean that our OS Aramaic John is less reliable than the standard canonical versions. Because, even if Jn was originally written in Greek, still, the OS versions could well be standing closer to the original text of Jn than the standard Alexandrian and Byzantine versions.

All the best,

Yuri.

Haran

I wasn't sure that they listed all the variants, but I am surprised that this particular one was not listed. It seems to be significant enough to be included considering the witnesses included for the omission of the article "hO"...

I didn't know that. I have have the separate English and Greek versions of Aland's Synopsis. I thought the variants in it were the same as those in the NA27. I didn't realize they were more extensive. Ya learn something new everyday, I guess! Thanks.

Yeah. Like in Hebrew, I would assume the "y" suffix indicates the possesive - aby = my father.

Good deal! Thanks again! Between this source, your transliteration and an online Syriac alphabet, I was finally able to "read" the Syriac in the link that I presented above. It definitely reads "aby". How interesting. This variant should be in critical editions in my opinion.

Interesting. I'll have to look into this more.

Sounds possible.

Thanks for the great information, Yuri!
I don't know if anyone else learned anything from this exhange, but I learned a lot.

aikido7

Most mainline scholars today recognize that the ancient scribes were living in various early Chirstian groups and each group "fashioned" a sort of "living Jesus" to help them cope with their own unique situations.

The earliest gospel was written about 70 AD.

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were creative theologians. It wasn't that they were "lying" as much as "utilizing and developing" the tradition handed down to them.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, Haran, I agree, it should have been included.

Quote:

YURI: "my" in "my father" is expressed by the suffix to the word "father" = "aba". Yeah. Like in Hebrew, I would assume the "y" suffix indicates the possesive - aby = my father.

Indeed, this seems to be the case.

Quote:

Good deal! Thanks again! Between this source, your transliteration and an online Syriac alphabet, I was finally able to "read" the Syriac in the link that I presented above. It definitely reads "aby". How interesting. This variant should be in critical editions in my opinion.

Well, I'm certainly not surprised that it's not in critical editions... because I see it as just part of that Big Aramaic Cover-up. This is what I find in recent NT scholarship...

And I've already written an article about it, that I'm planning to upload to the Net soon.

Quote:

Thanks for the great information, Yuri!

You're welcome, Haran.

You know that there's now a new edition/translation of these Old Syriac gospels by Wilson. I don't have it yet, and it has already been panned by some mainstream reviewers. But, so far, nobody has been able to impeach the old (and almost forgotten) translation by Burkitt. As I understand it, Gorgias Press has been planning to reprint it. For more details, see my webpage,

The Old Syriac Aramaic Gospels
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/aramgosp.htm

All the best,

Yuri.