+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? (/showthread.php?tid=3572)
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-15-2020
The Syrian churches compiled their canon (which lacked the 'Western Five') long before Origen's birth.
John Hancock Pettingell, _Views and Reviews in Eschatology: A Collection of Letters, Essays, and Other Papers Concerning the Life and Death to Come_ (1887), 501pp., essay "The Gospel of Life in the Syriac New Testament" pp. 41-98, on 53-54
https://books.google.com/books?id=WXZIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false
There is no question, but that scattered manuscripts of the several books of the New Testament, in Greek, were in existence very early, for the Fathers quote from them,-- but there is no evidence that any attempt was made to collect them into one code, or canon, till after the Second or Third Century. But it is certain, on the other hand, that the Syrian Churches had their canon long before this collection was made; tradition says, between the years 55 and 60, and that this was done by the Apostle Jude. This canon is known to have contained all the books now included in our New Testament, excepting the Apocalypse, and the brief Epistles of 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, and Jude. This tradition is strongly corroborated by the fact that these closing portions of our present canon were not then written; and this is a good and sufficient reason why they were not included in the first collection. The abrupt closing of the Book of Acts-- for it was evidently written at about that time-- that it might be ready for inclusion in this collection, goes to confirm the tradition as to the date of this collection. The Apocalypse and the four short Epistles which were not in readiness to be included at that early date, were afterward received into the Syriac Canon, but not till the sixth century.
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-15-2020
Some have argued that the Aramaic gospels are older than the Greek gospels, and that the Aramaic NT wasn't derived from the Greek NT. Commented William Norton in 1889,
"Faust Nairon, a Maronite, is often referred to by J. S. Asseman as a writer of eminence. He was one of the two editors of the edition of the Peshito Syriac Version, printed by the side of an Arabic Version of the N. T., in 1703, by command of the Roman Congregation _De propaganda fide_, for the use of the Maronites. He also wrote the preface. In this he said, (p. 2.) 'The Syriac text _excels in antiquity all other texts_. By it very many places which in these are obscure, may be made plain.' He proceeds to endeavour to prove that the Syriac text is more ancient than the Greek text of the Gospels. He mentions the common opinion that the Syriac Gospels were translated from the Greek, and says that there are better reasons for concluding that the Greek Gospels were translated from the Syriac. .... F. Nairon says in proof that THE PESHITO, AS A WHOLE, IS NOT A MERE TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK COPIES, that the _number_ of books in it is different from that of the Greek text, which has 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. That the _order_ of books is also different from their order in most Greek copies; for James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, follow the Acts; and that the Greek text has passages which the Peshito has not."
Norton later adds (on xlvii), 'Persons familiar with the Peshito admit the truth of Faust Nairon's remark, that the Peshito does really sometimes "make clear, things difficult or doubtful in the Greek." (Introduction, p. 9.) Bishop Walton quotes with approval the remark of De Dieu, that "the true meaning of phrases which often occur in the N. T., can scarcely be sought from any other source than the Syriac." (Polyg. Prol. xiii. 19.) J. D. Michaelis says, "the Syriac Version leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient." (Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 44.)'
Norton mentions (on lix-lx) additional scholars who had high regard for the Aramaic, and gives a fuller exposition of Michaelis:
'Jacob Martini was Professor of Theology in the University of Wittenberg, and wrote a preface to the N. T. Peshito-Syriac, in which he said, "It is a version, but of all, it is the first and most ancient. . . It is a version, but made either by one of the Evangelists, or at least, of those who . . . had the Apostles themselves present, whom they could consult and hear, respecting many of the more obscure places. To this _only_, therefore, when some obscurity or difficulty occurs in Greek copies, can we safely go. This _only_, when doubt arises respecting the meaning or translation of any passage, can be consulted with safety and freedom from error. By this _only_, the Greek Text is truly illustrated, and rightly understood." (See Gutbier's Preface to his Syriac N. T., 1663, p. 26.)
J. D. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the N. T., 1787, chap, vii., sec. 4., says, "The Syriac Testament has been my constant study." In sec. 8., he says, "The Peshito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraem and Bar Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure. . . . It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original." "What is not to be regarded as a blemish, it differs frequently from the modern modes of explanation; but I know of no version that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray a weakness and ignorance in the translator; and though in many other translations the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must be ever read with profound veneration." "The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine is so great, as to justify, in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spoke." "The Syriac New Testament is written in the same language [as that of Christ], but in a different dialect, ... in the purest Mesopotamian."
....
Professor Wichelhaus, 1850, dwells much on the worth of the Peshito. He calls it, "The most ancient witness, a version most accurate, untouched and untarnisned, ever transcribed and preserved by the Syrians with the greatest care." (p. 236.) He did not see why, with some few exceptions, it should not be "most like to the autographs of the Apostles." (p. 264.)'
-- William Norton, _A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshito-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John: With an Introduction on the Peshito-Syriac Text, and the Revised Greek Text of 1881_ (1889), cxxxii + 47pp., xli-xliv
https://books.google.com/books?id=U0QYAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22nairon%20says%20in%22&pg=RA1-PA33#v=onepage&q=%22nairon%20says%20in%22&f=false
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-16-2020
Could you elaborate on the basis/grounds for believing that "when Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles is writing, he was necessarily writing to them in Greek"? Was 1 Cor written: to Gentiles? in Greek? Is this entirely Greek?:
1 Corinthians 16:22
https://biblehub.com/texts/1_corinthians/16-22.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Μαρὰν / μαρανα ἀθά / θα.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν χριστόν, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Μαρὰν ἀθά.
John 7:35 (AMP)
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%207:35
Then the Jews said among themselves, “Where does this Man intend to go that we will not find Him? Does He intend to go to the Dispersion [of Jews scattered and living] among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?
What language(s) did the "sojourners of the dispersion": speak? read?
1 Peter 1:1-2 (YLT)
https://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-1.htm
https://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-2.htm
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied!
1 Peter 1:1
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_peter/1-1.htm
To the strangers scattered throughout . . .--- Literally, _to the elect, sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus_. The persons for whom the Letter is destined are very clearly specified. In John 7:35 we have "the dispersion of the Greeks," where it clearly means "those of the dispersed Jews who live among the Greeks," so here "the dispersion of Pontus," or "the Pontine dispersion," will mean "those of, the dispersed Jews who live in Pontus." In James 1:1 the same word is used, and, in fact, it seems to have been the recognised name for all Jews who did not live in Palestine. The word rendered by "sojourners" means people who are resident for a time among strangers: it might, for instance, describe English people who have taken houses in Paris without becoming naturalised; and, as it is here in so close a connection with geographical words, it seems forced to interpret it metaphorically (as in 1Peter 2:11). Palestine, not Heaven, is the home tacitly contrasted; Pontus, not earth, is the place of sojourn. This, then, is clear, that the Apostle of the Circumcision is writing to those of the Circumcision. The addition of the words "the blood of Jesus Christ" is the only thing which shows that they are _Christian_ Jews.
Which if any of the categories of people mentioned here were: Gentiles? 'Jews'?:
Acts 2 (KJV)
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Even if a text has high-quality Greek, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was originally composed in Greek: Josephus wrote in Aramaic, and had native Greek speakers polish his material that had been translated into Greek. What was Paul's native language? When Paul prepared written compositions, did he first write a copy in: his native language? a foreign tongue?
"the Diatessaron was widely used by early Syriac Christians" Agreed. It was composed by Tatian by A.D. 175 using the Peshitta, and was wildly popular among Syriac Christians. The Peshitta had been around for over 100 years before Tatian synthesized the Peshitta's 4 gospels into his Diatessaron.
"widely used by early Syriac Christians, and there would be no reason to do so if they had the completed gospels widely available" Writing material was valuable, and it took much time to copy the scriptures. Tatian's Diatessaron had 3/4ths of the gospels' text, and preparing a copy of the Diatessaron required only 3/4ths of the writing materials, and took only 3/4ths of the time to recopy, compared with making a copy of the complete 4 gospels. Plus it was more portable. Somebody took the time to translate the Diatessaron from Aramaic into Arabic around A.D. 900, despite there being 4 separate gospels readily available.
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-16-2020
I'm skeptical of the Greek primacy theory. Greek mss. are valuable, in that they give a translation of the original Aramaic into the very precise Greek language.
I'm a Protestant non-denominational. I run in charismatic Catholic circles. If I were to become something, I'd probably become Eastern Orthodox; they pray for the dead in hell, which Catholics don't do.
Apparently there's something called 'Lapid Judaism,' and it likes Aramaic primacy. I imagine the Eastern Orthodox like their Greek OT and Greek NT. The Church of the East has its Aramaic OT and Aramaic NT, and believes that its Aramaic NT came before the Greek translation did, but they don't make a big deal of it.
That the Aramaic NT came first has apologetic value. Some people have been on the verge of losing their Christian faith in the face of the morass of conflicting Greek mss. variants, only to learn of the original Aramaic and its superior textual transmission.
Some 'Jews' have been reluctant to embrace Christianity and a Greek NT having contradictions, only to learn of the Aramaic NT lacking those internal contradictions.
=======================================================.
Are you aware of any evidence that Jesus (or for that matter, any of the 12) ever spoke Greek on any occasion?
John Hancock Pettingell, _Views and Reviews in Eschatology: A Collection of Letters, Essays, and Other Papers Concerning the Life and Death to Come_ (1887), 501pp., essay "The Gospel of Life in the Syriac New Testament" pp. 43-98, 43+
https://books.google.com/books?id=WXZIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is the opinion of many scholars, that the Hebrew was the original language of man; that it was given to our first parents directly from heaven; first, in the oral form, and afterward, in the time of Moses, and not till then, in written characters. For this opinion they urge many sound reasons. But, be this as it may, we know that the Hebrew language was the vernacular of the ancient Israelites, and that the Old Testament Scriptures, some parts in prose and some in poetry, excepting a few fragmentary parts, were written in Hebrew.
The language of the Chaldeans, by whom the Jews were carried into captivity, about 600 years before Christ, was a branch of the same root, though it differed widely in both its oral and written form. In consequence of their long detention in the country of the Chaldeans, the pure Hebrew tongue of the Jews became corrupted, and after their return to Syria, it was still further corrupted by their subjugation to other nations, and by the importation of other races into their country: so that, at the commencement of the Christian era, their vernacular,-- though still retaining the general characteristics of the old Hebrew,-- had become what is called the Syro-Chaldaic, or Syriac language. This was divided into two principal dialects; the Eastern Aramean, which prevailed along the Southern and Eastern coasts of Syria; and the Western Aramean, which prevailed in the regions to the North and West. These dialects, however, were substantially the same language, differing more in the form of the written characters employed and in the pronunciation of the words, than in the words themselves.
After the conquest of this country by Alexander, in the fourth century before Christ, the Greek language was introduced, and came generally to prevail as the language of the learned and ruling classes, throughout Syria and all the surrounding regions. Still later, in the century before Christ, the Latin tongue was introduced by their Roman conquerors. Though it had some standing, as the language of their rulers and law-givers, it was never very extensively used in this part of Asia; but, after a time, it came to prevail to a considerable extent, to the West of Syria, and especially in Europe, as the language of the educated classes.
Thus, it will be seen that, at the beginning of the Christian era, there were three languages,-- not to notice others of minor importance,-- that prevailed to a greater or less extent, in Syria or Palestine: The Syriac or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the vernacular of the common people, of the synagogues and other public assemblies of the Jews; The Greek, which was the language of what are commonly called the upper classes, the educated and the refined; The Latin, which was the language of the government to which they were subject.
The state of things, with respect to diversity of tongues, in Palestine, in the time of Christ, was similar to that which now obtains in some of our larger cities, and especially, some of the cities and countries of the Old World. Take, for example, the city of Antwerp, in Belgium, with which,-- having resided there for several years,-- I am familiar. The basilar language of the people is Flemish, which is a corrupt form of the Dutch. Every citizen is supposed to be able to understand, and to use this language, both in its spoken and written form. The uneducated and laboring classes know no other. It is the vernacular of the streets, of the workshops, of the markets, and of most of the Churches. But the French also prevails very extensively. It is the language of business and trade among all the higher classes. It is taught in their schools, and is the ruling language of their higher seminaries of learning, of their literary, artistic, and social circles. No one makes any pretension to a fair education, who has not added to his native Flemish, a knowledge of the French also. The streets of the city have two names; one in Flemish, and the other in French. The daily papers, in each of these languages, circulate side by side, and men of affairs take and read both. Beside these, both the English and the German are used to a considerable extent, especially by the merchants. It is not difficult for an Englishman or an American, who is familiar with only his own tongue, to do business in most of the principal shops, and to make himself understood at the hotels of the city.
That our Lord, whose intercourse was chiefly with the common people, preached and taught in their own Syriac vernacular, there is no doubt. "The common people heard Him gladly." Indeed it is not certain that He ever used any other. He grew up among them as a laborer, and probably had no other education as a child, or mere man, than was common with the class to which He belonged. Of course, I am not speaking of His knowledge as a divine person. The same is true of His twelve Apostles, and His more immediate disciples. That all of them were familiar with the spoken Syriac, there is no question. How many of them were sufficiently educated to be able to read or write it, or whether any of them were familiar with the Greek, which would indicate a still higher education, and if so, which of them, must be a matter of conjecture. We know that most of them were taken from the lower walks of life, and those of them who were natives of Galilee, no doubt, spoke with the brogue, which was common in that region, and which differed from that of Judea, as perhaps that of Scotland differs from that of England. When Peter denied his Lord in Jerusalem, his speech betrayed his Galilean origin.
The inscription over the cross, The King Of The Jews, was written in the three prevailing languages; Hebrew (or Syriac), Greek, and Latin, that it might be read by all classes. Here, perhaps, we may see an unwitting prophecy of His future universal Kingship. When the chief priests would have had it changed to "He said, I am King of the Jews," Pilate showed a little of the firmness he so sadly lacked in giving Him over to their will, by replying, "What I have written, I have written."
That Paul, as an educated man, the divinely commissioned Apostle to the Gentiles, was familiar with both the Hebrew-Syriac and Greek languages, and perhaps also,-- aside from his supernatural endowments,-- with the Latin, and other languages is quite probable. But he expressly tells us that, when the Lord revealed Himself to him, on the way to Damascus, He spoke to him in the Hebrew (that is, in the Syro-Chaldaic) tongue. No doubt, also, Paul's missionary companions, such as Silas, Barnabas, Mark, Luke, and Timothy,-- none of whom, however, were of the twelve Apostles,-- were well educated for their work. When Paul had been rescued from the violence of the mob at Jerusalem, Claudius Lysias, the chief captain, who had rescued him, not knowing his antecedents, seems to have been surprised that he could speak Greek, and was glad to confer, privately, with him in that tongue. Then, when he had permitted him to address the surging multitude, that were thirsting for his blood, Paul beckoned with his hand, and began to address them in their own vernacular; and when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence.
The foregoing remarks are introductory to the more interesting and important inquiry: _In what language, or languages, were the twenty-seven books of the New Testament first written?_ ....
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-17-2020
When an angel spoke what became Mt 1:21, do you think he used:
Ἰησοῦν?
Yeshua (which means 'Salvation')?
Do you think the angel used:
4982/σώσει/sōsei?
N-KH-I-O-H-I: he will give life?
Matthew 1:21
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-21.htm
She will bear then a son, and you will call the name of Him Ἰησοῦν/Iēsoun/Jesus;
He for 4982/σώσει/sōsei/will-save the people of Him from the ἁμαρτιῶν/hamartiōn/sins of them.
Mat 1:21 (APNT)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/new-parallel-versions-search
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/new-interlinear-search
And she will give birth to a son and she will call his name Jesus,
for he will give life to his people from their sins." [Aramaic: N-KH-I-O-H-I: he will give life]
When the frightened disciples spoke what became part of Mt 8:25, do you think they used:
4982/σῶσον/sōson?
p-tz-n: deliver us?
Matthew 8:25
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/8-25.htm
having come to [Him], they awoke Him, saying, Κύριε/Kyrie/Lord, 4982/σῶσον/sōson/save-us, ἀπολλύμεθα/apollymetha/we-are-perishing!
Matthew 8:25
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Matthew+8:25&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) And the disciples approached him, that they might awake him, saying to him, Our Lord, deliver us, we are perishing ! [Aramaic: p-tz-n: deliver us]
(Murdock) and his disciples came to awake him, and said to him: Our Lord, deliver us; we are perishing!
(KJV) And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
===============================================================.
What language do you think Jesus spoke in his remarks below? (Greek?)
Luke 4 (NKJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+4&version=NKJV
16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
===============================================================.
Murdock's translation has mistranslations. Some of the mistranslations weren't caught until native Aramaic speaker Paul Younan translated the 4 gospels and half of Acts. It's erroneous to think that 'everlasting' is in Mt 25:46. Murdock probably got 'everlasting' from being influenced by the English renditions of the Greek (which in turn were renditions of the original Aramaic).
Mt 25:46 (based on Younan)
And these will depart l'thshniqa-d'l'ailm [to-torment of-to-the world/age, i.e. to the world/age of torment],
and the zadiqa [righetous] l'khia-d'l'ailm [to-life of-to-the world/age, i.e. to the world/age of life]."
Younan is in 2 locations:
1) http://peshitta.org Interlinear NT
2) http://dukhrana.com/ Peshitta Tool-- load a verse, and then look at the lines of blue at the left-hand side for 'Paul Younan.'
When I say 'based on Younan,' I took Younan's interlinear worked up into a sequence typical of English, and often drop in transliterations of Aramaic, sometimes with more-literal translations.
Younan's translation is the highest there is for the Gospels and the 1st half of Acts, plus it's free and available for anyone to use and re-transmit.
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-18-2020
Using the English word search tool at
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/new-english-word-search
"life-giver" appears in Murdock in 10 locations:
Joh 4:42
1Ti 1:1, 1Ti 2:3, 1Ti 4:10
Tit 1:3, Tit 1:4, Tit 2:10, Tit 2:13, Tit 3:4, Tit 3:6
Magiera has "life-giver" at these locations:
Luk 1:47
Eph 5:23
1Ti 1:1, 1Ti 2:3, 1Ti 4:10
2Ti 1:10
Tit 1:3, Tit 1:4, Tit 2:10, Tit 2:11, Tit 2:13, Tit 3:4, Tit 3:6
Looking at Magiera's concordance, the Aramaic word she usually renders as "Life-giver" also appears in:
John 4:42
Acts 5:31
1 Cor 15:45 (life-giving)
Philippians 3:20
(but she doesn't mention there Tit 2:11).
Which of the above passages are better rendered as having: Saviour? Life-Giver?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are the verses below best rendered as having: Life-Giver? Saviour?
Peshitta verses that contains lexeme 1:1023
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/sedra_concordance.php?adr=1:1023&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25&source=
Luke 1:47
John 4:42
Acts 5:31
1Corinthians 15:45
Ephesians 5:23
Philippians 3:20
1Timothy 1:1, 2:3, 4:10
2Timothy 1:10
Titus 1:3, 1:4, 2:10, 2:13, 3:4, 3:6
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-19-2020
Some think the Peshitta NT was translated from Greek mss. Which Greek mss. is most-similar to the Peshitta?
'Gay' used to mean 'happy.' Now it means 'homosexual.' Many words have been ascribed new meanings over time. I'm unaware of any "contextual justification" for thinking that 'ailm' meant 'eternity' to Aramaic speakers 2,000 years ago, nor for thinking that 'olam' meant 'eternity' to Hebrew speakers 2,500 years ago.
I'd think people would first sketch things out in their native language, before having things translated. It's quite possible that some NT authors did to their works slight alterations, which didn't make it into the copies already released. Pettingell has mentioned that possibility.
====================================================.
Do you disagree with anything in the 1st paragraph here?:
John Hancock Pettingell, _Views and Reviews in Eschatology: A Collection of Letters, Essays, and Other Papers Concerning the Life and Death to Come_ (1887), 501pp., essay "The Gospel of Life in the Syriac New Testament" pp. 43-98, 52-53
https://books.google.com/books?id=WXZIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false
The question as to each of these books cannot here be considered in detail; but it may be summarily said that, it is generally conceded that MATTHEW wrote his Gospel in Syriac; for it was written expressly for the Hebrews. This is the opinion of Papias, Eusebius, Epiphaneus, Jerome, and of other Fathers, as well as of not a few modern scholars, and even those who give their preference to the Greek, admit that a Syriac copy might have been prepared at the same time. It is the opinion of Olshausen, that Matthew prepared two copies, either by his own hands, or by the assistance of others, one in Syriac for the Hebrews, and the other in Greek for those who required it.
As for MARK and LUKE, neither of whom were of the twelve Apostles, but as the associates of Paul, were probably familiar with the Greek tongue, and who wrote more especially for the Gentiles, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they would furnish transcripts for the Syrian Christians in their own tongue. Eusebius supposes, that Mark, whom tradition credits with having been Peter's companion and interpreter, wrote his Gospel from the dictation of that Apostle.
I have never seen any good reason for supposing, with some, that JOHN wrote his Gospel in his extreme old age, sixty or seventy years after the death of Christ. He records more of our Lord's words than all the other Evangelists together. It is not possible, without a miracle, that he should have remembered them so long, and been able to record them so minutely, nor is it reasonable to suppose, that he would have deferred this duty to so late a period. I am inclined to believe, with Drs. Lardner, Owen, Michaelis, and others, that it was written about the year 65: and with Salmatius, Grotius, Bolton, and others, that he first composed it in Syriac, for it is only in this language he could give the very words of our Lord Himself. There is no objection to believing, however, that at the same time, or soon afterward, another copy was prepared in Greek.
We notice in the Greek manuscripts of all the Gospels, but more especially in that of Mark, the occurrence of Syriac idioms, and words, with an explanation introduced, by way of parenthesis, which would be quite natural in translating from this language to another, in the case of words and phrases that could not well be exactly rendered, or that were more emphatic in the original. Thus, we are told, in our Greek versions, that Christ said to the maid, when He restored her to life, _Talitha-cumi_, and then, in parenthesis, in the Greek version we are informed that this means _Damsel arise_: but no such explanation is given in the Syriac, or original, for the very good reason that it is not needed, for it is all in the same language: and so when He said _Ephatha_, to the deaf man, we are told in the Greek, that it means _Be opened_: and so of _Abba_, that it means _Father_, and of _Qorban_, that it means _Gift_, of _Raca_, that it means _Fool_, and _Golgotha_, a _skull_, etc. These are all Hebrew-Syriac words, which appear to have been transferred unchanged from the original manuscript, into the Greek, with a parenthetical explanation. Both Matthew and Mark record the dying words of our Lord, just as He uttered them; _Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani_, and then, in the Greek copy or version of Mark's Gospel, we are informed, in Greek, that these words mean, _My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?_
=======================================.
How is Titus 2:11 best rendered?
Titus 2:11
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Titus+2:11&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) FOR the all-saving grace of Aloha [Or, the grace of Aloha saving all.] hath appeared to all men,
(Murdock) For the all-vivifying grace of God, is revealed to all men;
(KJV) For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Titus 2:11
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/titus/2-11.htm
Epephanē/Ἐπεφάνη/ Has appeared
gar/γὰρ/for
hē/ἡ/the
charis/χάρις/grace
tou/τοῦ/the
Theou/Θεοῦ
4992/sōtērios/σωτήριος
pasin/πᾶσιν
anthrōpois/ἀνθρώποις/men
https://biblehub.com/titus/2-11.htm
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus+2%3A11&version=DLNT
(Berean Literal Bible) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
(Weymouth New Testament) For the grace of God has displayed itself with healing power to all mankind,
(Young's Literal Translation) For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men,
(Disciples’ Literal New Testament)
For the grace of God appeared[a] _bringing_-salvation _for_ all people,
a: Or, showed-itself, made its appearance. Or, the grace _of_ God _bringing_-salvation appeared _for_ all people.
Titus 2:11 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
https://biblehub.com/titus/2-11.htm
For the all saving grace of God has been revealed to all men;
Tit 2:11 (APNT)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new-parallel-versions-search
For the grace of God, the Life-giver of all, is revealed to all men
Titus 2:11
William Norton, _A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Seventeen Letters Forming Part of the Peshito-Syriac Books of the New Covenant Writings: Which Have Been Received Throughout the East, from the Beginning, as Written in Syriac by Inspiration of God: a Like Translation of the Inspired Greek Text of These Letters, in a Corresponding Column on Each Page_ (1890)
Section 7 of
https://books.google.com/books?id=OEQYAAAAYAAJ
For the gracious favour of God, which is the cause of life[-bliss] to all, has been revealed to all men;
Tito 2 - Biblia Peshita (Nuevo Testamento)
https://www.bibliatodo.com/la-biblia/Peshita-nuevo-testamento/tito-2
11. Porque la gracia de Dios, que a todos da vida, ha sido manifestada a todos los hombres,
google translate:
11. Because the grace of God, which gives life to all, has been manifested to all men,
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-19-2020
In 2 Peter, was it originally: 'Saviour Jesus Christ'? 'Redeemer/Deliverer/Liberator Yeshua Meshikha'?
Moses is described in Acts 7:35 as a redeemer/ deliverer/ liberator.
Is Jesus similarly described in Greek NT mss.?
Is 'by the hand of the messenger' a figure of speech likely to be used by a native:
Greek speaker?
Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) speaker?
Acts 7:35
https://biblehub.com/acts/7-35.htm
(Berean Literal Bible) This Moses whom they rejected, having said, 'Who appointed you ruler and judge?'--him whom God sent and as ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel having appeared to him in the bush--
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English) This Moses, whom they rejected when they were saying, 'Who appointed you the Ruler and Judge over us?', this one God sent as the Ruler and Deliverer to them by the hand of The Angel who appeared to him at the bush.
(Young's Literal Translation) 'This Moses, whom they did refuse, saying, Who did set thee a ruler and a judge? this one God a ruler and a redeemer did send, in the hand of a messenger who appeared to him in the bush;
In Greek mss.: lytrōtēn/ λυτρωτὴν/ redeemer
In the Aramaic: w'p-r-u-q-a: and deliverer
Acts 7:35
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Acts+7:35&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) This Musha whom they denied, when they said, Who appointed thee over us a prince and a judge ? this, sent Aloha unto them a prince and a deliverer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him at the bush.
(Murdock) This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, Who constituted thee a ruler and judge over us ? this same did God, by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush, send to them to be their captain and deliverer.
(KJV) This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
3086. lutrótés
https://biblehub.com/greek/3086.htm
lutrótés: a redeemer, deliverer
Original Word: λυτρωτής, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: lutrótés
Phonetic Spelling: (loo-tro-tace')
Definition: a redeemer, deliverer
Usage: a redeemer, liberator, deliverer.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 3086 lytrōtḗs (from 3084 /lytróō) – one who liberates (releases a captive), used only in Ac 7:35. 3086 /lytrōtḗs ("liberator") refers to God using Moses to set His people free from the bondage of Egypt. See 3084 (lytroō).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from lutroó
Definition
a redeemer, deliverer
NASB Translation
deliverer (1).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3086: λυτρωτής
λυτρωτής, λυτρωτου, ὁ (λυτρόω), redeemer; deliverer, liberator: Acts 7:35; (the Sept. Leviticus 25:31, 32; Philo de sacrif. Ab. et Cain. § 37 under the end); for גֹּאֵל, of God, Psalm 18:15 (); Psalm 77:35 (). Not found in secular authors.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
deliverer.
From lutroo; a redeemer (figuratively) -- deliverer.
see GREEK lutroo
3084. lutroó
https://biblehub.com/greek/3084.htm
lutroó: to release by paying a ransom, to redeem
Original Word: λυτρόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: lutroó
Phonetic Spelling: (loo-tro'-o)
Definition: to release by paying a ransom, to redeem
Usage: I release on receipt of ransom; mid: I redeem, release by paying ransom, liberate.
HELPS Word-studies
3084 lytróō (cognate with 3083/lytron, "a ransom-price") – properly, to release (set free) by paying the full ransom; "to release, on receipt of ransom" (Vine); (figuratively) to restore "something back, into the possession of its rightful owner – i.e. rescuing from the power and possession of an alien possessor" (Wm. Barclay).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from luó
Definition
to release by paying a ransom, to redeem
NASB Translation
redeem (2), redeemed (1).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3084: λυτρόω
λυτρόω, λύτρῳ: passive, 1 aorist ἐλυτρωθην; middle, present infinitive λυτροῦσθαι; 1 aorist subjunctive 3 person singular λυτρώσηται; (λύτρον, which see); the Sept. often for גָּאַל and פָּדָה;
1. to release on receipt of ransom: Plato, Theact., p. 165 e.; Diodorus 19, 73; the Sept., Numbers 18:15, 17.
2. to redeem, liberate by payment of ransom ((Demosthenes, others)), generally expressed by the middle; universally, to liberate: τινα ἀργυρίῳ, and likewise ἐκ with the genitive of the thing; passive ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ἀναστροφῆς, 1 Peter 1:18; middle "to cause to be released to oneself (cf. Winers Grammar, 254 (238)) by payment of the ransom, i. e. to redeem; universally, to deliver": in the Jewish theocratic sense, τόν Ἰσραήλ, viz. from evils of every kind, external and internal, Luke 24:21; ἀπό πάσης ἀνομίας, Titus 2:14 (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 30, 6 a.); τινα ἐκ, spoken of God, Deuteronomy 13:5; 2 Samuel 7:23; Hosea 13:14.
Peshitta verses that contains lexeme 1:2611
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/sedra_concordance.php?adr=1:2611&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25&source=
Luke 2:11
Acts 7:35, 13:23
Romans 11:26
2Peter 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18
1John 4:14
Jude 1:25
Jastrow mentions 'redeemer' in bottom right-hand quarter
http://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1221
R. Payne Smith mentions 'liberator' in bottom left-hand quarter
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon//lookup.php?p=3295&l=1
and mentions 'saviour, deliverer, preserver, defender, guardian' in top left-hand quarter
http://cal.huc.edu/showjps.php?jpspage=459
I'll have to look at the verses having:
4506. rhuomai
https://biblehub.com/greek/4506.htm
rhuomai: to draw to oneself, i.e. deliver
Original Word: ῥύομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: rhuomai
Phonetic Spelling: (rhoo'-om-ahee)
Definition: to draw to oneself, deliver
Usage: I rescue, deliver (from danger or destruction).
HELPS Word-studies
4506 rhýomai (from eryō, "draw to oneself") – properly, draw (pull) to oneself; to rescue ("snatch up"); to draw or rescue a person to and for the deliverer.
In Mt 6:13 ("the Lord's Prayer"), 4506 (rhýomai) is used in the closing sentence, "Deliver (4506 /rhýomai) us from evil" – i.e. "Deliver me to Yourself and for Yourself." That is, "Lord deliver me out of my (personal) pains and bring me to You and for You."
[4506 (rhýomai) properly means, "to snatch out for oneself" (H. Cremer, G. Winer).
J. Thayer, "Properly, 4506 (rhýomai) means to draw out . . . to one's self" – i.e. to rescue for oneself (to oneself). 4506 /rhýomai ("rescue") implies removing someone in the midst (presence) of danger or oppression, i.e. delivered "right out of" and to (for) the rescuer.]
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
akin to eruó (to drag)
Definition
to draw to oneself, i.e. deliver
NASB Translation
deliver (3), delivered (1), Deliverer (1), rescue (3), rescued (7), rescues (1), set...free (1).
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-19-2020
"I would like to be able to peer" Magiera's study tools are very powerful:
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/new-english-word-search
1. English Word Search
2. Parallel Versions Search
3. Interlinear Search
4. Word Study Search
5. Lexicon Search
6. Morphology Search
Hardcopies of her 3 interlinears, plus her concordance, would be about $200.
You're already familiar with the Peshitta Tool at
http://dukhrana.com
That site has a transcription of the Khabouris mss., with Etheridge on one side.
http://dukhrana.com/crawford/
has the Book of Revelation - Transcription, Translation, and Commentary; a hardcopy of the Transcription + interlinear Translation can be gotten from http://lulu.com
_The Messianic Aleph Tav Interlinear Scriptures: Volume Four Gospels_ (2016) and _Messianic Aleph Tav Interlinear Scriptures: Volume Five Acts-Revelation_ by William H. Sanford can be obtained from his website. The 2 volumes have an interlinear Aramaic in 2 fonts + Etheridge translation + Aramaic transliteration, plus an interlinear Greek + English translation.
I'll look for a PDF I compiled of Younan's Mt-Acts 16 interlinear files available on http://dukhrana.com and http://peshitta.org
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-20-2020
"suspect Jesus is referring to the Apostle John" That makes sense. Magiera, Younan, and Lamsa are similar to Murdock, plus Etheridge mentioned the possibility of "[Shall live.]":
Mat 10:22 (APNT)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/new-english-word-search
And you will be hated by all men, because of my name.
But he who endures until the end will live.
Matthew 10:22 (based on Younan)
And you will be hated by all men because of my name,
but whoever that endures until the end, he will live.
Matthew 10:22
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Matthew+10:22&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) And you shall be abhorred by all men on account of my name:
but he who shall persevere until the end, he shall be saved.[Shall live.]
(Murdock) And ye shall be hated by every one, on account of my name.
But he that shall endure to the end, shall have life.
(Lamsa) And you will be hated by everybody because of my name;
but he who endures until the end shall live.
(KJV) And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake:
but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Plus the 1st of the Dutch translation options on http://dukhrana.com seems to have gotten "will live":
Matthew 10:22 - En jullie zullen om mijn naam door alle mensen gehaat worden,
maar wie volhardt tot het einde, zal leven.
google translate:
Matthew 10:22 - And you will be hated by all people for my name,
but he who endures to the end will live.
Joseph Pashka's _The Aramaic Gospels and Acts: Text and Translation_ (2003) closes Mt 10:22 with "will have Life."
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-21-2020
Do you think ‘saved’ belongs in the renderings of any of these passages?:
Mt 10:22
Mt 24:13, 22
Acts 27:20
Does “moon” belong in Acts 27:20?
Matthew 24:22
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-22.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-22.htm
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English) If those days are not cut short
no one would live,
but because of the chosen ones,
those days will be cut short.
(YLT) And if those days were not shortened,
no flesh would have been saved [4982/esōthē/ἐσώθη/ would have been saved];
but because of the chosen,
shall those days be shortened.
4982. sózó
https://biblehub.com/greek/4982.htm
Matthew 10 (KJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+10&version=KJV
21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death,
and the father the child:
and the children shall rise up against their parents,
and cause them to be put to death.
22 *And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake:*
*but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.*
23 *But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:*
for verily I say unto you,
Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel,
till the Son of man be come.
Matthew 24 (KJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+24&version=KJV
7 For nation shall rise against nation,
and kingdom against kingdom:
*and there shall be famines,*
and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted,
and shall kill you:
*and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.*
10 And then shall many be offended,
and shall betray one another,
and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise,
and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound,
the love of many shall wax cold.
13 *But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.*
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
for a witness unto all nations;
and then shall the end come.
….
19 And woe unto them that are with child,
and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,
neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation,
such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time,
no, nor ever shall be.
22 *And except those days should be shortened,*
*there should no flesh be saved:*
*but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.*
Does this work?: Mt 10:22 (modified Younan)
And you will be hated by all men because of my name,
but whoever that is sustained/fed [perhaps by living off the land, perhaps by going from house to house and city to city to obtain food] until the end,
he will live [as in, survive].
The CAL mentions “3 to feed, sustain someone Syr. (a) of the earth Syr. P Gn13:6… that land was unable to sustain them both to stay together. …. 1 to be sustained Syr. LawsCoun.22.17… (a) to be fed Syr. P Acts27:21… when no one had been fed anything. IIMac5:27….”
Genesis 13 (Peshitta Tanakh, Lamsa translation)
http://superbook.org/LAMSA/GEN/gen13.htm
5 ¶ And Lot also, who went with Abram, had large flocks, herds, and tents.
6 And the land was not able to support them, that they might dwell together;
for their herds were so large that they could not dwell together.
I’m unaware of Peshitta Tanakh 2 Maccabees in English, so this is the closest I have for it:
2 Maccabees 5:27 (NABRE)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+maccabees+5%3A27&version=NABRE
But Judas Maccabeus and about nine others withdrew to the wilderness to avoid sharing in defilement;
there he and his companions lived like the animals in the hills, eating what grew wild.
Acts 27:20
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/27-20.htm
Neither now hēliou/ἡλίου/sun nor astrōn/ἄστρων/stars appearing for many days tempest and no small lying on [us] from then on was abandoned hope all the 4982/sōzesthai/σῴζεσθαι of us
Acts 27:20
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Acts+27:20&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) And when the storm had held more days,
and neither the sun was seen, nor the moon, nor stars,
the hope that we should be saved at all was cut off.
(Murdock) And as the storm held on for many days,
and as no sun was visible, nor moon, nor stars,
all hope of our surviving was wholly cut off.
(KJV) And when neither sun nor stars in many days appeared,
and no small tempest lay on us, [Greek: epikeimenou/ ἐπικειμένου/ lying on [us]]
all hope that we should be saved was then taken away.
Acts 27:21
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Acts+27:21&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) And while no man had taken any food
[Aramaic: a'k-d, a-n-sh, m-d-m, l-a, m-s-th-i-b-r: And-after man something not nourished/fed],
then stood Paulos among them, and said,
Men, if you had been persuaded by me, you would not have voyaged from Kreta,
and we should have been exempted from loss, and from this distress.
(Murdock) And as no one had taken a meal of food,
Paul now stood up in the midst of them, and said:
If ye had given heed to me, O men, we should not have sailed from Crete,
and we should have been exempt from this loss and peril.
(KJV) But after long abstinence
Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said,
Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete,
and to have gained this harm and loss.
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:13808&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&source=khabouris&size=125%25
sybr vb. to bear , endure
CPA normally ... , thus this unique example must be deemed uncertain
quad View a KWIC
1 to bear (through hardship), bear up, endure CPA, Syr. Hom4 2.2:15… that I enduring gather up for my old age. OS MtCur6:24… he will put up with one. HippAp 5(9)… in summer and fall (the sick) manage foods with great difficulty, in the winter, though, with much ease. (a) to condone Syr. am2 222:5 .
2 to contain within oneself Syr. P 1K(1)8:27… the heavens and high heavens cannot contain you. P Is42:14…
3 to feed, sustain someone Syr. (a) of the earth Syr. P Gn13:6… that land was unable to sustain them both to stay together.
4 …to be able to do without something, restrain oneself from something Syr. KwD2 157:16 .
quad T View a KWIC
1 to be sustained Syr. LawsCoun.22.17… (a) to be fed Syr. P Acts27:21… when no one had been fed anything. IIMac5:27….
[w’m-sh-th-i-b-r-i-n
h-u-u
ai-u-r-a]
=======================================================.
In the afterlife, we can ask which came first, Aramaic or Greek.
I know little about the accuracy of the Latin Vulgate.
When arguing for Aramaic primacy, I find myself often quoting from Young's Literal Translation and the KJV because they often show more-explicitly what's occurring in the Greek and Hebrew.
For Mt-Acts 16, Younan's interlinear is the most-accurate.
For the rest of the NT, Murdock and Etheridge and Magiera have respectable translations of the Aramaic, though they do have mistranslations caught by Younan. I like that Etheridge and Magiera have 'sheol' transliterated rather than inserting 'hell.'
The _Lapid Jewish Aramaic New Testament_ started with Murdock as a base, and has far more transliterations than even Etheridge, which is nice.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/lapid-publishing/lapid-jewish-aramaic-new-testament/paperback/product-24404421.html
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-21-2020
What's the best rendition of 1Cor 9:22?
a Dutch translation at
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php
1Corinthians 9:22 - Ik ben voor de zwakken als een zwakke geworden, opdat ik de zwakken zou winnen.
Voor iedereen ben ik alles geworden, opdat ik iedereen Leven zou mogen geven.
als een zwakke - dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta en van de Griekse MHT en TR. In de Griekse NA28 ontbreekt het woordje ‘als’.
opdat ik iedereen Leven zou mogen geven - dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta. De lezing van de Griekse NA28, MHT en TR luidt: ‘om in elk geval enigen te redden’, wat toch wel een heel andere betekenis geeft. De lezing met ‘iedereen’ wordt alleen in de Griekse Codices D (‹6e eeuw›) en G (‹9e eeuw› gevonden. De Latijnse Vulgata heeft wel de lezing: ‘iedereen’.
using google translate:
1Corinthians 9:22 - I have become like the weak to the weak, that I may gain the weak.
I have become everything for everyone, so that I may give life to everyone.
as a weak - this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta and of the Greek MHT and TR. In the Greek NA28 the word "if" is missing.
that I may give life to everyone - this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: "in order to save some," which gives a very different meaning. The reading with "everyone" is only found in the Greek Codices D (6th century) and G (9th century), while the Latin Vulgata does have the reading: "everyone."
Apparently a-kh-a, the Aramaic word behind the 'give life,' can also mean 'brother/comrade.'
Maybe the best rendition is:
"I have become like the weak to the weak,
that I may gain the weak.
I have become everything for everyone,
so that I may be a brother/comrade to everyone."
I recall Cain's "Am I my brother's keeper?"
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=1Corinthians+9:22&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:393&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&source=khabouris&size=125%25
ˀḥ, ˀḥˀ (ˀaḥ, ˀaḥā [pl. ˀaḥḥīn]) n.m. brother
1 brother Com. KetefYer.B.3 ... IduOstr 3:8.5 ... TAD A2.1 R.2 ... TAD A6.14 .5 ... or his brother or his son. IranSilLab ... BT AZ 11b(20) ... the brother of our master [i.e. Jacob] is a falsifier. (a) pl.: siblings Syr. IshNum 96:14 ... we (Moses, Aaron, and Miriam) are three siblings. (b) as the title of a functionary (?) Palmyrene.
2 kinsman, comrade Com. TAD B2.9 R.10 ... we, our sons, our daughters, our kin, and anyone belonging to us shall not be able. SamPap.4..6 ... Ezra7:18 ... whatever is good for you and your brothers † . 4QTob b4.3.5=07:3 ... where are you from my kinfolk?. TN Deut25:11 ... each and every man. PJ Deut15:3 ... you should press a gentile for payment but must drop a claim you might have against your kinsman. Tobit(Med) 11.13 chap 7 ... do you know our kinsman PN?. (a) of a non human JBA. BT Er 51a(7) ... beneath a palm tree that is supporting its fellow. BT MQ 11a(39) ... fish: he should broil it with its brother (salt or spice), place it in its father (water), eat it with its son (sauce? eggs?), and drink its father with it.
In some corpora (particularly letters) it is difficult to determine whether the reference is to an actual brother, a kinsman, or just a comrade; this is normative in the ancient near eastern world.
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-21-2020
James Murdock, _The New Testament; or, The book of the holy gospel of Our Lord and Our God, Jesus the Messiah.: A Literal Translation from the Syriac Peshito Version_ (1855), 515pp., 497-501
https://books.google.com/books?id=SiVMAAAAYAAJ&pg=497
THE VALUE OF THE PESHITO VERSION.
The great value of this translation depends on its high antiquity, on the competence and fidelity of the translators, and on the near affinity of its language to that spoken by our Lord and his Apostles. In all these respects it stands pre-eminent among the numerous versions of the New Testament.
On this subject we will here give the published statements of various learned men who have devoted particular attention to this unrivalled version.
James Martini, a Professor at Wittemberg, in his elaborate Preface to the Syriac New Testament, edited by Trostius, in 1610, says: "Let those who speak lightly of this version know, that the Syriac, if not the very language in which Christ himself conversed with his Apostles, approaches very nearly to the vernacular tongue of our Saviour and his companions, and that into it the recent books of the New Testament were the first of all translated, and that, too, at the very time when the Apostles, (those divine teachers whom Christ himself had educated, and who were enlightened and instructed by the Holy Spirit,) were laying the first foundation of the Christian church among the nations. I admit that it is a _version_, but it is the _first_ and most ancient of all versions. It is a _version_, I say, but one to be preferred before all others, as being more authentic and more correct. It is a version, I say again, but made either by some one of the Evangelists, or certainly by one of those who had the Apostles present with them at Antioch, whom they could consult and hear speak on many of the obscurer passages. And therefore to this version only can we safely go, when any obscurity or difficulty occurs in the original Greek. This only can be safely consulted and relied upon, whenever there is doubt respecting the import or the rendering of any passage. By this only is the Greek text illuminated and correctly explained. For the authority of this version very nearly approximates (proxime accedit) to that of the Greek original."
Wolfgang Francius, a colleague of Martini, in his Treatise on Hermeneutics, (p. 46,) says: "This version, all the learned pronounce and declare to be the _purest_ of all versions: and, doubtless, it was so exactly transferred by the holy men, because _Christ_ spoke and discoursed in the Syriac language: so that we cannot doubt, that the Apostles and the apostolical men carefully inquired after and laid up the very words of Christ, and, with a holy veneration, endeavored to record them in this version."— And (p. 38) he says: "Among all the versions of the New Testament, that which holds the first rank, and is the most exact, felicitous, and divine, is certainly the Syriac, which, undoubtedly, was most faithfully handed down by apostolical men, who remembered well the recently uttered words of Christ and his Apostles, and understood their meaning. For Christ himself used this language."
Emanuel Tremellius, in the Preface to his Syriac New Testament, A. D. 1568, says: "It is entirely consonant with truth, that this version was formed at the very commencement of the Christian church, either by the _Apostles_ themselves or by their disciples: unless we would suppose that in writing they had regard only to strangers, and cared little or nothing for their own countrymen."
Brian Walton, in the Prolegomena to his Biblia Polyglotta, (p. 92,) says: "The Syriac version of the New Testament exhibits the native aspect, (faciem nativam,) of the original text, and confirms its integrity. For it follows the Greek text for the most part, ...[snipping 2 Greek words]..., strictly. For, the New Testament being written in _Greek_, by men whose vernacular language was _Syriac_, everywhere savors of _Syriasms_. Hence, Ludovicus de Dieu (in his Harmonia trium Linguarum) affirms, that the true import of the phraseology of the New Testament _can scarcely be learned, except from the Syriac_. For no one will say that the phraseology of the Evangelists and Apostles is _pure_ Greek: and it would be easier for Europeans to imitate the elegance of Plato and Aristotle, than for Plato and Aristotle to explain to us the New Testament, because the holy men _conceived in Syriac_, that which they _wrote in Greek_, injecting the force of their vernacular tongue into foreign words." After accounting for some diversity in the orthography of certain Syriac words, such as _Golgotha_, _Aceldama_, _Mammona_, &c., in the Greek and Syriac New Testaments, by saying, that the Peshito of both Testaments is written in _the Antiochian dialect_, and not in the dialect of Jerusalem, he concludes thus: "From these most ancient versions we infer, that this (the Syriac) language is of the highest importance, because the writers of the New Testament, to whom this language was vernacular, first preached the divine oracles in it to the Jews, and to the nations around them, and afterwards wrote them out in Greek, yet retaining everywhere the _spirit_ (_gustum_) of the Syriac. Nay, it was vernacular to the Lord and Saviour himself; He drew it in with his mother's milk: and in it, the only-begotten Son of God revealed to the world the will of God, and the express promises of eternal life. This language, He consecrated by his holy lips; in this language, He taught the doctrines of the Gospel; in it, He offered his prayers to the Father, laid open the mysteries hidden from the world, and heard the voice of the Father coming from heaven: so that we may say,
'Lingua hominum est lingua nobilitata Dei.'
And, as a poet has said of a Syrian lexicographer,
'Nos docet hic unus, Numinis ore loqui.'
Moreover, this is the language of the Christian doctors through nearly all the East, as appears from the Liturgies and Divine Offices almost everywhere performed in it."
….
John D. Michaelis, in his Introd. to the New Testament, (translation of Marsh, ed. London, 1802, vol. ii. P. I. p. 40, &c.,) says: "The Peschito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read; that of Luther .... holding the second rank. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraim and Bar-Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure; not loaded with foreign words, like the Philoxenian version and other later writings, and discovers the hand of a master in rendering those passages where the two idioms deviate from each other. It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original: and this excellence of its style must be ascribed to its antiquity, and to its being written in a city that was the residence of Syrian kings. ... It is true that the Syriac version, like all human productions, is not destitute of faults, and (what is not to be regarded as a blemish) diners frequently from the modern mode of explanation. But I know of none that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence, in case of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray any weakness or ignorance in the translator: and though in many other translations, the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must ever be read with profound veneration."
After a few sentences, Michaelis adds: "The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine, is so great as to justify, in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spoke. . . . The difference between the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode of pronouncing; and if a proper use had been made of this advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages would be made clear, if the words were still on record which Jesus spoke with his disciples in the Aramaean language. But the translator appears not to have been fortunate in rendering passages of this nature. . . . This circumstance alone affords sufficient evidence that the Syriac version was not written by one of Christ's _immediate disciples_."—(Ibid. p. 44.)
"The Syriac version .... leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient, e. g. Matt. vi. 7; John, xvi. 2; Rom. ix. 22; and xiii. 3; and confirms some ancient rites in which we are deeply interested, such as the celebration of Sunday, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And in discovering either the meaning of an unusual word, or the unusual meaning of a common word, where no assistance can be had from the Greek authors, the Syriac version may be of singular service, as the translator was probably acquainted with the language of common life, as well as the language of books; and is, at least, of equal authority with a Greek lexicon of later ages."—(p. 45.)
"The chief advantage to be derived from the Syriac version is, in applying it to the purposes of criticism. Its high antiquity, and frequent deviation from the common reading in passages of importance, must recommend the use of it to every critic, who in general will find himself rewarded for his trouble. . . . The difference between the Syriac version and the greatest part of the Greek manuscripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to suppose, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cases from the Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which were written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the productions of countries remote from Syria."
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-22-2020
"are good manuscripts, but I strongly suspect they were taken down the line from the Greek"
Approximately when? (as a reminder, the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatessaron have an extremely large number of similarities)
"taken down the line from the Greek"
How do you account for the geographical details present in the Peshitta, but lacking in Greek mss.?
Johann David Michaelis, _Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (and a Dissertation on the origin and composition of the three first gospels)_ as translated by Herbert Marsh, 4 vols., vol. 2 part 1 (1802), 43-44
https://books.google.com/books?id=Y1gHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA39
In the Curæ, in Act. Apost. § vi. p. 73, 74. I have taken notice of certain traces in the Syriac version, which lead to the supposition of its having been made by a native Jew. To the reasons alleged in that treatise, which I submit to the determination of my readers, I will add, that the Syriac translator appears to have been so well acquainted with Palestine, that he must at least have visited that country, for he has frequently restored geographical names in the Greek Testament to their true Oriental orthography. Capernaum is written in the Syriac Testament ... , that is, the village of Nahum; Bethania, is written ... ; Bethphage is written ... , which perfectly corresponds to its situation, for ... , in Arabic, signifies 'a valley between two opposite mountains,' an etymology which alone removes a contradiction which was supposed to exist between the New Testament and the Talmud ; and Bethesda, John v. 2. is written ... , which is probably conformable to the derivation, whether we translate it 'place of favour,' or 'place of the conflux of waters.' The Syriac version therefore is the surest, and indeed the only guide, in discovering the etymology of geographical names, for the Arabic versions are too modern, and in other translations it was impossible to preserve the orthography of the East.
Norton, William. 1889. _A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshito-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, With an Introduction on the Peshito-Syriac Text, and the Revised Greek Text of 1881_ (London: W. K. Bloom), ~140pp. What's below is from a Google books copy; the book is also at
https://archive.org/details/translationineng00nort
In the Introduction, pages l - li:
In the names of places, the Peshito shows the same independence of the Greek. ....in Acts xxi. 7, the Gk. has, Ptolemais; the Syriac has, Acu.
Mr. Jer. Jones, in his work on the Canon, 1798, contends that the use of the name Acu, for Ptolemais, is a decisive proof that the Peshito must have been made not far in time from A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. (vol. i. p. 103.) He says that the most ancient name of this place among the Israelites was Aco, or Acco, Judges i. 31; that this name was afterwards changed to Ptolemais; that some say it had its new name from Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B.C. He says it is certain that the old name Aco, was antiquated and out of use in the time of the Romans, and that the use of the old name Acu, in the Peshito, can be accounted for in no other way, but by supposing that the persons for whom the version was made were more acquainted with it, than with the new name Ptolemais; that upon any other supposition it would have been absurd for him to have used Acu. He says, that until the destruction of Jerusalem, one may suppose that the Jews may have retained the old name Aco still, out of fondness for its antiquity; but, he says,
"how they, or any other part of Syria, could, after the Roman conquest, call it by a name different from the Romans, seems to me impossible to conceive. . . To suppose, therefore, that this translation, in which we meet with this old name, instead of the new one, was made at any great distance of time after the destruction of Jerusalem, is to suppose the translator to have substituted an antiquated name known to but few, for a name well known to all" (pp. 104, 105.)
Mr. Jones says that a similar proof that the Peshito cannot have been made much after A.D. 70, is found in the fact that the Peshito often calls the Gentiles, as the Jews were accustomed to do, _profane persons_, where the Greek calls them _the nations_, that is, the Gentiles. The Peshito calls them profane, in Matt. vi. 7; x. 5; xviii. 17; Mark vii. 26; John vii. 35; Acts xviii. 4, 17; 1 Cor. v. 1; x. 20, 27; xii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 3. The expression is used, therefore, throughout the Peshito. Mr. Jones says, that it shows that the writer was a Jew, for no other person would have called all the world profane; and that after the destruction of the temple, all Hebrew Christians must have seen that other nations were not to be reckoned unclean and profane in the Jewish sense, and that therefore this version must have been made either before, or soon after, A.D. 70. (On Canon, Vol. i., pp. 106-110.)
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - DavidFord - 02-22-2020
"top 3 reasons Aramaic is not viewed as the original among scholars?" Beats me. I do know that Daniel Wallace booted me from posting pro-Aramaic arguments on his blog-- see below.
I bet many scholars work to ensure that people having views similar to their own are their successors. I'm reminded that my application to attend BIOLA was rejected because I was an annihilationist at the time, and didn't tow the never-ending-torture position.
What are the top 3 reasons:
Ultimate Restoration isn't adopted by most "scholars"?
Intelligent Design isn't embraced by most scientists?
In an 1887 book, John Hancock Pettingell reports doing an investigation wherein he discovered that, "The common impression that the entire New Testament was first written in Greek, and that all the copies we now have, in whatever tongue, are copies, or translations of the original manuscripts, when seriously examined, is found to have no certain foundation. And yet this has been taken almost universally for granted. It is probable, that this is true with respect to some, possibly a majority of these books. But it is more than probable, if not quite certain, that some portions of the New Testament, such as the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistles to the Hebrews, and others, which will hereafter be mentioned, were first written in the vernacular Syriac of the Jews, and were afterward translated into Greek; and that other portions, perhaps most of the books, were duplicated, at the time they were written, by their authors, or under their direction,-- one copy being furnished to those who were familiar with the Greek, and another to those who knew only the Syriac."
Daniel B. Wallace ....@....com
To d....
Dec 21, 2014 at 4:00 PM
I have allowed you to post several lengthy comments about an Aramaic original NT at danielbwallace.com, but it is my policy not to let this blogsite be a place for an individual to advance an ideology or use the site for propaganda. So, you have posted your last comment on this blog.
dbw