judge

Another example of a "smoking gun" that seems to indicate that the greek is a translation from the Aramaic can be found where the greek translations at times alternate between the singular of a word and the plural (depending which greek mss we look at).


In the emphatic state in Aramaic (there may be a small number of exceptions)) there is no spelling distiction between singular and plural. They are spelt the same way.

What we find in the peshitta today is that there are diacretical markings or "dots' that indicate plurality. They are called syame.
These syame were added to the text gradually after the 6th century. In other words anyone translating prior to this would have had to decide contextually whether a word was singular or plural. From time to time either singular or plural would probably suffice.
So what do we find? All peshitta are identical, but the greek translations vary.
One example is John 6:14.
The following Greek manuscripts translate F0 "miracle/sign" in the plural - p75, B, 0191
The following Greek manuscripts translate F0 "miracle/sign" in the singular (the correct way) - S, A, D, K, L, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi, f1, f13, 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1010, 1241

Romans 9:4 is another example of the singular/plural confusion due to the absence of the Syame markings.

The following Greek manuscripts read "the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law" - S, C, K, Psi, 33, 81, 104, 614, 630, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2495

The following Greek manuscripts read "the glory, and the covenant, and the giving of the law" - p46, B, D, G

2 Corinthians 1:10 also
The following Greek manuscripts read: "He rescued us from so great a (peril of) death" - S, A, B, C, D, G, K, P, Psi, 33, 81, 104, 614, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2495

And the following read: "He rescued us from such great (perils) of death" - p46, 630, 1739c



There are more example as well, but I'm sure this gives an indication of the argument.

all the best

judge

Another example of a "smoking gun" is the use (or non-use) of a redundant proclitic which occurs in the aramaic language.

In Acts 10:36, we have two different readings among the various Greek manuscripts.
"You know the word (which) he sent to the sons" (p74 S* C D E P Psi 945 1241 2495)
"You know the word he sent to the sons" (Sa A B 81 614 1739)

The word "which" here is a proclitic which is redundant in say greek or english. We would not include the word "which" necessarily, although in Aramaic it would be.

Some greek translators left it out (probably better greek) and some put it in (worse greek apparently...although I am open to being corrected about this)

But again the point is that all the aramaic are the same but it appears that when it was translated to greek some went one way and some the other. Not conclusive on it's own I admit, but there are more examples of this type of thing.

all the best

Merle

You seem to be suggesting that the Aramaic was translated at least 3 times from Aramaic to Greek. If the Greek versions we have today represent multiple translations of the Aramaic, wouldn't there be many thousands of differences? Compare any 3 English translations that were not derived directly from each other. Are they not so different that it is obvious that these are 3 different translations of the same source, rather than mutants of each other? It seems to me that the Greek manuscripts we have are mutants of common source material, and not multiple translations from another language.

judge

As far as I am aware no two ancient greek manuscripts are exactly the same. Which is perhaps what would be expected?

In contrast to this all peshitta manuscripts are identical AFAIK. There are a couple of differences between the peshitta and the peshitto (but these two instances seem clearly to be down to differences in christology)

If the peshitta is derived from "common source material" then why does it not show the variation we see in the ancient greek manuscripts? There is no record of the peshitta evr being standardised.

Presently my own view would be that the text of the peshitta has come to us unchanged from the times of the apostles themselves.
I am quite interested in any evidence to the contrary though, I haven't to this point been able to find much.

all the best

aikido7

Bernard Brandon Scott, a New Testament scholar noted for his ground-breaking analysis of Jesus' parables, gives an overview of the arguments pro and con on the issue of whether Jesus spoke Greek (he most certainly spoke Aramaic).

Circumstantial evidence is very strong, Scott says, that Jesus spoke Greek. In addition, Scott points to the fact that Q was originally composed in Greek and since it is believed to have been written in the 50s, the early followers of Jesus in Galilee were probably bilingual.

H.O.Guenther writing in Semeia[ in 1991 gives a capsule history of the idea (and its deft demolishment) that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek.

judge

Hi Aikido hope you are well.

aikido7:
Circumstantial evidence is very strong, Scott says, that Jesus spoke Greek. In addition, Scott points to the fact that Q was originally composed in Greek and since it is believed to have been written in the 50s, the early followers of Jesus in Galilee were probably bilingual.

judge:
Would you be able to outline how it was established as "fact" that Q was composed in Greek?


Aikido7:
H.O.Guenther writing in Semeia[ in 1991 gives a capsule history of the idea (and its deft demolishment) that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek.

judge:
As you can probably see this is an area of interest to myself. Would you be able to give a brief outline of these ideas and the "demolishment"?

thanks in advance.

Merle

Well, Judge, I see that you are quite convinced that the Aramaic New Testament was first, but I am not convinced. I am no expert on these things, but I have some comments.

You are not suggesting that every one of these Greek manuscripts is a seperate translation from the original Aramaic, are you? Surely most of these changes must be either from sloppy copying or deliberate changes by scribes working with Greek source material.

It seems to me that many of the changes we see in the Greek are the result of deliberate alteration.


Is it not possible that only one Aramaic tradition survived down to the middle ages, and all existing copies derive from this one copy in the middle ages? That seems to explain why they are almost identical.

It seems to me that it would be difficult to tell for sure what changes were made in the document from its origination until it was duplicated in the middle ages.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear judge,

You seem to be making two basic methodological mistakes in what you write. First, you base all your arguments for Aramaic priority on the Peshitta. But the Peshitta is a relatively late text. Most scholars, myself included, see it as clearly secondary to the Old Syriac gospels.

And second, in your arguments for Aramaic priority, you seem to treat all NT texts as equal. But there's a lot more evidence e.g. for Mt having been written originally in a Semitic tongue. In contrast, there's a lot less evidence for the letters of Paul having been written originally in a Semitic tongue.

I'm sure this is mistaken.

AFAIK, there's no evidence that there's less variation in the Peshitta MS tradition, compared to the Greek MS tradition. But please note, _even_ if I was proven to be wrong on this, still, this would not be a valid argument for the Peshitta text being more "original". Rather, IMHO, this would be an argument for the Greek text being more original (since most scholars agree that the earliest gospel texts featured more variability).

Quote:

If the peshitta is derived from "common source material" then why does it not show the variation we see in the ancient greek manuscripts? There is no record of the peshitta ever being standardised.

No, rather than being standardised, the Peshitta text was quickly abandoned, and was replaced in general use with the Philoxenian, and then with the Harklean versions.

Quote:

Presently my own view would be that the text of the peshitta has come to us unchanged from the times of the apostles themselves.

Seems highly unlikely to me...

Yours,

Yuri.

judge

Merle:
Well, Judge, I see that you are quite convinced that the Aramaic New Testament was first, but I am not convinced. I am no expert on these things, but I have some comments.

Judge:
Fine I'm sure I have a lot to learn here as well.

Merle:
You are not suggesting that every one of these Greek manuscripts is a seperate translation from the original Aramaic, are you? Surely most of these changes must be either from sloppy copying or deliberate changes by scribes working with Greek source material.

It seems to me that many of the changes we see in the Greek are the result of deliberate alteration.

Judge:
How each MSS came to be I don't know. Some parts clearly seem to be the result of deliberate alteration, that is for sure. Some psrts seem to be the result of difficulty in treanslation too. I have provided what I think are some examples.

Merle:
Is it not possible that only one Aramaic tradition survived down to the middle ages, and all existing copies derive from this one copy in the middle ages? That seems to explain why they are almost identical.

Judge:
perhaps the oldest peshitta manuscript is the khabouris which is said by some to date from the 4th century. This seems to be much debated with some placing it as late as the 11th(?)
I understand that the Sianitic Syriac2 dates from the 5th century. Perhaps Yuri can confirm or deny this?


All the best

judge

Hi yuri,


Yuri:
Dear judge,

You seem to be making two basic methodological mistakes in what you write. First, you base all your arguments for Aramaic priority on the Peshitta. But the Peshitta is a relatively late text. Most scholars, myself included, see it as clearly secondary to the Old Syriac gospels.

Judge:
Try as I might I can't seem to find any evidence that the peshitta is a late text. Can you point out what this evidence is?

I think I can probably find something suggesting it is early.

Yuri:
And second, in your arguments for Aramaic priority, you seem to treat all NT texts as equal. But there's a lot more evidence e.g. for Mt having been written originally in a Semitic tongue. In contrast, there's a lot less evidence for the letters of Paul having been written originally in a Semitic tongue.


Judge:
I do admit there is little evidence of what language Paul wrote in. But if I can suggest something slightly provocative ...there is nothing to suggest he necesarily wrote in greek. Perhaps you know something we could discuss?

I'm sure you must be aware of the so called mistranslation of romans 5:7. What do you make of this?


Yuri:
AFAIK, there's no evidence that there's less variation in the Peshitta MS tradition, compared to the Greek MS tradition. But please note, _even_ if I was proven to be wrong on this, still, this would not be a valid argument for the Peshitta text being more "original". Rather, IMHO, this would be an argument for the Greek text being more original (since most scholars agree that the earliest gospel texts featured more variability).

judge:
I am fairly certain there is no variation in peshitta texts. if there is it is extremely little.

On the second point, why do scholars agree that earliest texts show more variation. They must use another method to decide they are older (writing style perhaps).
But this argument does not have the same strength if the greek copies are translations of the peshitta.


Yuri:
No, rather than being standardised, the Peshitta text was quickly abandoned, and was replaced in general use with the Philoxenian, and then with the Harklean versions.

judge:
How was the peshitta text abndoned? It is still used today in the liturgy of the COE. We have around 350 MSS from the first millenium.
AFAIK we have no copies at all of the Philoxenian version. All we have is it quoted in Philoxeno's commentaries on the gospels.
Philoxenos's translation was done because he though the peshitta left room for a nestorian interpretation

I don't think Thomas of Harkels version was used in the liturgy of a church either. It seems that the peshitta was not abandoned by the COE anyway. There does seem to be a good argument that "fear of nestorianism" turned some from it.

all the best, and thanks for your input here.