Peshitta Forum

Shlama Akhay,

It just occurred to me how important this certain issue is. Basically, it can be a very strong argument for Aramaic Primacy OR for Greek Primacy (a make or break case? - well maybe a bit of an exaggeration...)

Since phileo and agapao are synonyms, and since these words occur so OFTEN in the New Testament, we would expect for it to be a split word (one verse having phileo in one Greek mss and agapao in another Greek mss) - and the more verses have this variant, the stronger the split word and the stronger the case for Aramaic primacy.

However!

If there is not one verse where this variant exists, we are in trouble. Then it would be a strong argument for Greek primacy. I hope no Zorbans are reading this <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

So if anyone knows a variant on this, please speak up. I shall try to find as many as I can (my current total is zero) and if anyone has some time to help, that is much appreciated. The links provided by Akhan Larry will no doubt be of invaluable help.

I'm crushed <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cry.gif" alt="" title="Crying" /><!-- s -->

I went through TR, Byz Maj and WH and found no 'split word' for agape/phileo. The only difference I found in fact, was that for one verse, in one mss it was agapoate and for the other two it was agapate.

What the???

If the two words have a common root in Aramaic, why no variant???
<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s --> <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cry.gif" alt="" title="Crying" /><!-- s --> :oops: :x

I'm disappointed but not giving up. I mainly searched TR, Maj text, and WH for agapate and filei, but there are other texts and other ways of spelling the words.

I have these three Greek mss in a handy concordance, by having them in the Online Bible program.

Are there any such concordances for the other Greek mss? Perhaps Akhan Larry knows. Online Greek concordances for Tischendorf etc

If anyone else is as obsessed as I am over this higly potential split word, I found the various forms of the word in Greek, from Strongs and the verses. All we have to do is check if these verses have variants in other Greek mss where agape is replaced with phileo and vice versa...

---

From strong's:

filew
phileo

efilei
John 11:36, John 15:19, John 20:2

pefilhkate
John 16:27

fileiV
John 11:3, John 21:17, John 21:17

filei
John 5:20, John 16:27, 1 Cor 16:22

filhsai
Luke 22:47

filhsw
Matt 26:48, Mark 14:44

filountaV
Titus 3:15

filountwn
Luke 20:46

filousin
Matt 6:5, Matt 23:6

filwn
Matt 10:37, Matt 10:37, Luke 15:29, Luke 21:16, John 12:25, John 15:13, Rev 22:15

filw
John 21:15, John 21:16, John 21:17, Rev 3:19

---

agapaw
agapao
agapan
Mark 12:33, Mark 12:33, Rom 13:8, Eph 5:28, 1 Th 4:9, 1 Pe 3:10, 1 Jo 4:11, 1 Jo 4:20

agapaV
John 21:15, John 21:16

agapate
Matt 5:44, Luke 6:27, Luke 6:32, Luke 6:35, Luke 11:43, John 13:34, John 13:34, John 14:15, John 15:12, John 15:17, Eph 5:25, Col 3:19, 1 Pe 1:8, 1 Pe 2:17, 1 Jo 2:15

agapatw
Eph 5:33

agaphqhsetai
John 14:21

agaphsanti
Rev 1:5

agaphsantoV
Rom 8:37, Gal 2:20

agaphsaV
John 13:1, 2 Th 2:16, 2 Ti 4:10

agaphsate
1 Pe 1:22

agaphseiV
Matt 5:43, Matt 19:19, Matt 22:37, Matt 22:39, Mark 12:30, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Rom 13:9, Gal 5:14, Jam 2:8

agaphsei
Matt 6:24, Luke 7:42, Luke 16:13, John 14:23

agaphshte
Matt 5:46

agaphsw
John 14:21

agapwmai
2 Cor 12:15

agapwmen
1 Jo 3:11, 1 Jo 3:14, 1 Jo 3:18, 1 Jo 3:23, 1 Jo 4:7, 1 Jo 4:12, 1 Jo 4:19, 1 Jo 5:2, 1 Jo 5:2, 2 Jo 1:5

agapwntaV
Matt 5:46, Luke 6:32, Luke 6:32

agapwntwn
Eph 6:24

agapwn
John 14:21, John 14:21, John 14:24, Rom 13:8, 2 Cor 12:15, Eph 5:28, 1 Jo 2:10, 1 Jo 3:10, 1 Jo 3:14, 1 Jo 4:7, 1 Jo 4:8, 1 Jo 4:20, 1 Jo 4:21, 1 Jo 5:1

agapwsin
Luke 6:32, Rom 8:28, 1 Cor 2:9, Jam 1:12, Jam 2:5

hgapate
John 8:42, John 14:28

hgapa
John 11:5, John 13:23, John 19:26, John 21:7, John 21:20

hgaphkosin
2 Ti 4:8

hgaphmenhn
Rom 9:25, Rom 9:25, Rev 20:9

hgaphmenoi
Col 3:12, 1 Th 1:4, 2 Th 2:13

hgaphmenw
Eph 1:6

hgaphsamen
1 Jo 4:10

hgaphsan
John 3:19, John 12:43, Rev 12:11

hgaphsaV
John 17:23, John 17:23, John 17:24, John 17:26, Heb 1:9

hgaphsa
John 13:34, John 15:9, John 15:12, Rom 9:13, Rev 3:9

hgaphsen
Mark 10:21, Luke 7:47, John 3:16, John 13:1, John 15:9, Eph 2:4, Eph 5:2, Eph 5:25, 2 Pe 2:15, 1 Jo 4:10, 1 Jo 4:11, 1 Jo 4:19

26
agaph
agape
agapaiV
Jude 1:12

agapa
Luke 7:5, Luke 7:47, John 3:35, John 10:17, John 14:23, 1 Cor 8:3, 2 Cor 9:7, Eph 5:28, Heb 12:6, 1 Jo 2:15, 1 Jo 4:21, 1 Jo 5:1

agaphn
Luke 11:42, John 5:42, John 13:35, John 15:13, Rom 5:8, Rom 14:15, 1 Cor 13:1, 1 Cor 13:2, 1 Cor 13:3, 1 Cor 14:1, 2 Cor 2:4, 2 Cor 2:8, Eph 1:15, Eph 2:4, Eph 3:19, Php 2:2, Col 1:4, Col 1:8, Col 3:14, 1 Th 3:6, 2 Th 2:10, 2 Th 3:5, 1 Ti 6:11, 2 Ti 2:22, Phm 1:5, Phm 1:9, 1 Pe 4:8, 2 Pe 1:7, 1 Jo 3:1, 1 Jo 3:16, 1 Jo 4:16, Rev 2:4, Rev 2:19

agaphV
Rom 8:35, Rom 8:39, Rom 15:30, 2 Cor 8:8, 2 Cor 8:24, 2 Cor 13:11, Gal 5:6, Gal 5:13, Php 1:17, Php 2:1, Col 1:13, 1 Th 1:3, 1 Th 5:8, 1 Ti 1:14, 2 Ti 1:7, Heb 6:10, Heb 10:24, 1 Pe 5:14

agaph
Matt 24:12, John 15:9, John 15:10, John 15:10, John 17:26, Rom 5:5, Rom 12:9, Rom 13:10, Rom 13:10, 1 Cor 4:21, 1 Cor 8:1, 1 Cor 13:4, 1 Cor 13:4, 1 Cor 13:4, 1 Cor 13:8, 1 Cor 13:13, 1 Cor 13:13, 1 Cor 16:14, 1 Cor 16:24, 2 Cor 5:14, 2 Cor 6:6, 2 Cor 8:7, 2 Cor 13:14, Gal 5:22, Eph 1:4, Eph 3:18, Eph 4:2, Eph 4:15, Eph 4:16, Eph 5:2, Eph 6:23, Php 1:9, Col 2:2, 1 Th 3:12, 1 Th 5:13, 2 Th 1:3, 1 Ti 1:5, 1 Ti 2:15, 1 Ti 4:12, 2 Ti 1:13, 2 Ti 3:10, Titus 2:2, Phm 1:7, 1 Pe 4:8, 1 Jo 2:5, 1 Jo 2:15, 1 Jo 3:17, 1 Jo 4:7, 1 Jo 4:8, 1 Jo 4:9, 1 Jo 4:10, 1 Jo 4:12, 1 Jo 4:16, 1 Jo 4:16, 1 Jo 4:17, 1 Jo 4:18, 1 Jo 4:18, 1 Jo 4:18, 1 Jo 5:3, 2 Jo 1:3, 2 Jo 1:6, 3 Jo 1:6, Jude 1:2, Jude 1:21

agapw
John 14:31, 2 Cor 11:11, 1 Jo 4:20, 2 Jo 1:1, 3 Jo 1:1

27
agaphtoV
agapetos
agaphta
1 Cor 4:14, Eph 5:1

agaphte
3 Jo 1:2, 3 Jo 1:5, 3 Jo 1:11

agaphthn
Rom 16:12

agaphth
Phm 1:2

agaphtoiV
Acts 15:25, Rom 1:7

agaphtoi
Rom 11:28, Rom 12:19, 1 Cor 10:14, 1 Cor 15:58, 2 Cor 7:1, 2 Cor 12:19, Php 2:12, Php 4:1, Php 4:1, 1 Th 2:8, 1 Ti 6:2, Heb 6:9, Jam 1:16, Jam 1:19, Jam 2:5, 1 Pe 2:11, 1 Pe 4:12, 2 Pe 3:1, 2 Pe 3:8, 2 Pe 3:14, 2 Pe 3:17, 1 Jo 3:2, 1 Jo 3:21, 1 Jo 4:1, 1 Jo 4:7, 1 Jo 4:11, Jude 1:3, Jude 1:17, Jude 1:20

agaphton
Mark 12:6, Luke 20:13, Rom 16:5, Rom 16:8, Rom 16:9, 1 Cor 4:17, Phm 1:16

agaphtoV
Matt 3:17, Matt 12:18, Matt 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, Eph 6:21, Col 4:7, Col 4:14, 2 Pe 1:17, 2 Pe 3:15

agaphtou
Col 1:7

agaphtw
Col 4:9, 2 Ti 1:2, Phm 1:1, 3 Jo 1:1

SPLIT WORD!!!!!!!! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Check out manuscript D, it should have in John 11:5, 'efilei' instead of 'hagapa'.

<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Praise the LORD!

drmlanc Wrote:SPLIT WORD!!!!!!!! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Check out manuscript D, it should have in John 11:5, 'efilei' instead of 'hagapa'.

<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Praise the LORD!

Shlama Akhi Chris,

I thought this might be a real tough nut to crack but I didn't realize it would be like hunting for a needle in a haystack. By the way, would any of those downloads at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.e-sword.net">http://www.e-sword.net</a><!-- w --> be of any advantage to your studies?
I've downloaded this package with bunches of different add-on modules and also "The Sword Project" at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crosswire.org">http://www.crosswire.org</a><!-- w --> plus I have a bunch of goodies with the Online Bible Millenium Edition courtesy of <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.OnlineBible.net">http://www.OnlineBible.net</a><!-- w -->
As for Greek concordances that give insight as to which text or texts they represent for each entry, I'm totally in the dark. I'll have to give those search engines a workout and see what's up! There seems to be an abundant supply for the so-called standard editions like Stephens & Scrivener's Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority Text, etc., but that's never quite the same as pinpointing the exact text or texts these variants, mistranslations, and other things all come from.

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey

Yes it is a hard nut to crack, that's what disturbs me. If there are no significant number of variants of phileo'agape among Greek mss, while they supposedly come from one Aramaic word for love, then this case actually supports Greek primacy <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

I have esword and online bible, but you really need more Greek then just the big 3. And it seems no website out there talks of agape'phileo variants :X

I guess I'll just have to go through EACH and EVERY ref I supplied above, in the byz maj text and teh alexandrian. I wouldn't waste time doing Stephen's and Scrivener's as they are likely to be similar to byz. I think checking all in byz and alex would be more efficient.

Man, this is one big project. And it must be found! To arms Akhay! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> Lest we let Zorbans overwhelm us...

Woops, I can't find any more examples so far. Unless there are way more examples, two negative scenarios are a possibility:

1) Paul Younan was wrong, that the Peshtta has only one word, while the Greek has phileo and agapao. Is this so? I thought too the Peshitta only had one word fo rlove.

2) The Peshitta is not he original. Obviously this is quatsch, BUT how then no variants? If agape and phileo are synonyms from the same Aramaic word, then there should be PLENTY of examples where agape and phileo are interchanged in verses between various Greek mss.

Man, this topic makes me go nuts <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

Shlama Akhi,

drmlanc Wrote:Woops, I can't find any more examples so far. Unless there are way more examples, two negative scenarios are a possibility:

1) Paul Younan was wrong, that the Peshtta has only one word, while the Greek has phileo and agapao. Is this so? I thought too the Peshitta only had one word fo rlove.

While Paul Younan has been wrong too many times in the past <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s --> , I don't think you have to worry to much about this, Akhi.

The Peshitta has only one word for love in this passage of scripture - but throughout the NT there are actually two different words used. [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0bwx [/font]and [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0mxr[/font]

I think we need to study the inter-relationship between these Aramaic words and the corresponding Greek translations.

Quote:2) The Peshitta is not he original. Obviously this is quatsch, BUT how then no variants? If agape and phileo are synonyms from the same Aramaic word, then there should be PLENTY of examples where agape and phileo are interchanged in verses between various Greek mss.

Man, this topic makes me go nuts <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

Something to keep in mind - usually the reason for a true "split-word" is that the original has multiple, but different meanings. That's not the case here, right? <!-- shock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="hock:" title="shocked" /><!-- shock: -->

Quote:The Peshitta has only one word for love in this passage of scripture - but throughout the NT there are actually two different words used. 0bwx and 0mxr

D'oh! I figured from your posts on agapao/phileo, that there was one word in Peshitta, translated as phileo and agapao, and that is partly of the evidence that the "2 loves" doctrine is a false one.

This indeed is interesting to look at, I maybe can try later when I have time to see if agapao applies to one word and same for phileo. But then, if two different Aramaic words, are they exactly the same? Or is one indeed "friendly love" and one is "divine love"?

Plus we already have one variant on this, maybe there are more...

Quote:Something to keep in mind - usually the reason for a true "split-word" is that the original has multiple, but different meanings. That's not the case here, right?

Obviously you would know more than me, but I thought that one Aramaic word leading to two totally different words in the Greek (same meaning, arguably, but totally different spelling) was highly suggestive of different independant translations from Aramaic to Greek. In fact, we should expect to see a lot of 'synonym variances' in Greek mss, as a result of different mss being translated from the Aramaic, should we not?

drmlanc Wrote:But then, if two different Aramaic words, are they exactly the same? Or is one indeed "friendly love" and one is "divine love"?

Nope - that's Greek hogwash. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->

"Khuba" means "love" in the way the English means "love". "Rakhma" means something more along the lines of the English "compassion, mercy, empathy, friendship."

Quote:

Quote:Something to keep in mind - usually the reason for a true "split-word" is that the original has multiple, but different meanings. That's not the case here, right?

Obviously you would know more than me, but I thought that one Aramaic word leading to two totally different words in the Greek (same meaning, arguably, but totally different spelling) was highly suggestive of different independant translations from Aramaic to Greek. In fact, we should expect to see a lot of 'synonym variances' in Greek mss, as a result of different mss being translated from the Aramaic, should we not?

Perhaps - but, overwhelmingly you will notice (if you go back and look at our examples so far) that the true "split-words" arise where the same word in Aramaic means two vastly different things, and those two meanings are represented by two different Greek words.

An example like this one is really weak for split-words. I would not categorize it as a split-word at all. I would say that the Greeks were simply using "translators privelege" and freely translating for the sake of variety. I've done it before, myself. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Hmmm... I will agree that split words with different meanings are 'stronger evidence' but I still see 'synonym split words' as evidence of Greek translation also. If the Greek is the original, then they should be the same etc.

But even if we disregard this issue as a split word, for argument's sake, how do we solve this problem? If phileo and agapao are just synonyms, shouldn't we see more variances among the manuscripts?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to cause trouble for Peshitta primacy here, and make the Greek look good. But I also see that with individual Greek translations, we should see more 'synonym variants'...

drmlanc Wrote:But even if we disregard this issue as a split word, for argument's sake, how do we solve this problem? If phileo and agapao are just synonyms, shouldn't we see more variances among the manuscripts?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to cause trouble for Peshitta primacy here, and make the Greek look good. But I also see that with individual Greek translations, we should see more 'synonym variants'...

We should see some synomnal split words - but I really have noticed that true split words are far more prevalent when Zorba was presented with a root that had multiple divergent readings.

It also depends on the circumstances and inter-relationship of the various Greek families of text.

Any luck so far Akhi Larry?

drmlanc Wrote:Any luck so far Akhi Larry?

Shlama Akhi Chris,

I've been looking through Matthew and Mark to see what I could find. Ironically, I found a place where "w'Rakhmiy"-- ("and love")--is ignored by the Greek translators.
Yeah, that's right...you heard me...well, actually "love" is in italics (in the KJV)...but italics are for those words that are supposedly not in the original. How about that? Zorba gets himself in trouble by what he does and does not say! The passage is Mark 12:38. Here it is from akhan Paul's interlinear---

"and in his teaching he say would to them beware of the scribes who like ([font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nybcd[/font]) to walk in long robes and love ([font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nymxrw[/font]) a greeting in the streets."

Since neither 'agape' or 'phileo' were used to translate "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nymxrw[/font]" the ASV translators wound up making another guess besides the 'love' guess we see in the KJV!
Here's the ASV---

Mar 12:38 And in his teaching he said, Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and to have salutations in the marketplaces,

Well...when ya gotta guess...there's no telling what you'll come up with! :roll: <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- s -->

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey