Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Couple of questions
#1
Hello everyone,

i have spent the last few days reading about Aramaic primacy. i am quite intrigued by what i have read. However, i do have a few questions that may appear dumb, and may have quite obvious answers for some of you, but i do not yet know much about this. Those questions may partially be answered somewhere in this forum, but, quite frankly, searching a forum is never as effective as advertised. Most of these questions are answered in 3-5 Words, so i trust you will not mind me asking them. i am fine if you just answer concisely and maybe post a link / refer to a book for an extensive answer.

So here we go:

1) i do know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, as well as the apostles, but i am kind of confused on the Syriac alphabet being used in the Peshitta, as i thought that in Jesus' times they exclusively used the Hebrew alphabet. i've also never seen any archaeological excavations from Jesus' time with Syriac writings. But, since i'm no linguist nor an archaeologist, what's the consensus on this, do you believe the Peshitta was written in Syriac alphabet, or was it transferred into Syriac letters later? Around what time? When were the vowel points added to the Syriac text?

2) What is the best way to approach Aramaic/Syriac studying for non-Syriac speaking people like me? i made use of the Peshitta at http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta. It is quite helpful and organized. Looking at the analysis (e.g. this one), i noticed a kind of number reference system (simply called "ID", like Strong's). Is that system widely established/accepted? Does anyone have a list of extensive dictionaries? Is there any software (i have the module for e-Sword, but that's kind of a very little start, considering i have access to so many resources on the Greek in programs like Libronix)?

3) From what time are the earliest Syriac manuscripts? From what time is the earliest complete Syriac NT (without Western five)? How many manuscripts are there? How many families?

4) Is there any information on how diverse the varieties between the manuscripts are? Is there much more unity between the texts as with the Greek (supposedly 99.5%)?

5) It is quite easily to comprehend that Matthew was written in Aramaic, with all the Church Fathers evidence. You could also persuade me on Hebrews, considering the unique style in the Greek, which may indicate translation, as well as the majority of the NT books.

But then, it seems hard to believe that this is true for any of John's writings (Making extensive use of fine intricacies of Greek grammar, especially in Revelation), or Luke's writings (written to a Greek man) were originally written in Aramaic; and then there are the "Western five" (including Revelation again) that (as i understand) are a translation from the Greek, which means the originals are either lost (anyone here believing in any form of divine preservation?), or written in Greek (which would still make the Greek superior?). And then there is Romans, written by Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, to the Church in Rome, consisting of Gentiles (Rom. 1:13-17). Why would he write Aramaic? Similar arguments can be made for some other books.

It does seem quite logical that the first NT books were written in Aramaic, but i do wonder, does anyone on this board believe (or did anyone seriously consider) that maybe a part of the New Testament was written in Aramaic, whereas a part was written in Greek?

6) Does anyone here believe that the NT should not contain the "Western five"? Does anyone here believe that the Aramaic "Western Five" are superior to the Greek text?

7) Does anyone here believe the Syriac OT is superior to the Hebrew?

<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> Why does the Syriac OT substitute Elohim with YWY (Syriac name of God?)? Didn't the translators know the difference between a name and a title (You really, totally and completely lost me here)? How do you pronounce YWY anyways (no vowel points)? Or do you, like in the Hebrew, substitute Adonai for YWY, which was substituted for the Hebrew Elohim? <!-- sRolleyes --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="Rolleyes" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- sRolleyes --> Why does the Syriac OT you provided here use Hebrew letters, not Syriac?

9) Although i read that this Forum is "Theologically neutral", do most of the Aramaic Primacy believers come from the "Church of the East"? Are there any famous adherents outside of the HACACotE?

10) Before i forget, is there any kind of complete reference for differences between the Greek and the Syriac texts?

11) Assuming the Syriac is the Original NT, which Greek Manuscript comes closest to the Syriac text?

12) Can anyone provide me with a list of (preferably published) books pro Aramaic Primacy / con Aramaic Primacy? The more books on the list, the better.

Consider Yourselves lucky, i forgot some of my questions for now. i may still ask tem later though...

Thanks a lot for any answered questions.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#2
Shlama,

welcome to the forum. i'll answer a few of the questions and leave the others for someone else.
<!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Andrej Wrote:1) i do know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, as well as the apostles, but i am kind of confused on the Syriac alphabet being used in the Peshitta, as i thought that in Jesus' times they exclusively used the Hebrew alphabet. i've also never seen any archaeological excavations from Jesus' time with Syriac writings. But, since i'm no linguist nor an archaeologist, what's the consensus on this, do you believe the Peshitta was written in Syriac alphabet, or was it transferred into Syriac letters later? Around what time? When were the vowel points added to the Syriac text?

Syriac was in use. as for whether the Peshitta was first written in Estrangela or Ashuri script, it may not be a question able to be answered. interestingly, when you start studying the examples of Greek variants that are explained by the Aramaic, you will run across instances where they are explained as a misreading of an Aramaic word, and sometimes this explanation comes from confusion of a word in Estrangela, and sometimes from confusion of a word in Ashuri script, so BOTH lend strong credence to showing that the Greek texts originated from a Semitic tongue. it is deciding which script was used first that may be unanswerable.

Andrej Wrote:3) From what time are the earliest Syriac manuscripts? From what time is the earliest complete Syriac NT (without Western five)? How many manuscripts are there? How many families?

from what i am aware of, there are around 350 Peshitta manuscripts. as for "families," this may not be the best term to use as it is understood in the Greek textual criticism realm. there is the Eastern and the Western Peshitta, with the Western being referred to usually as the Peshitto instead of the Peshitta, but even then some less-specific may still call the Peshitto the Peshitta. but there is a difference between them. the Western Peshitto contains the Western 5, plus a very minor set of variation elsewhere in the text.

Andrej Wrote:4) Is there any information on how diverse the varieties between the manuscripts are? Is there much more unity between the texts as with the Greek (supposedly 99.5%)?

the consonance between the Peshitta texts is a whopping 99.995%, if i recall correctly. the consonance between the Greek is actually much less than you've suggested: the 7 best Greek manuscripts only contain a 62.9% agreement, as tallied by Kurt Aland, in The Text of the New Testament, and this was ignoring verses with only one variant reading, at that.

Andrej Wrote:5) It is quite easily to comprehend that Matthew was written in Aramaic, with all the Church Fathers evidence. You could also persuade me on Hebrews, considering the unique style in the Greek, which may indicate translation, as well as the majority of the NT books.

But then, it seems hard to believe that this is true for any of John's writings (Making extensive use of fine intricacies of Greek grammar, especially in Revelation), or Luke's writings (written to a Greek man) were originally written in Aramaic; and then there are the "Western five" (including Revelation again) that (as i understand) are a translation from the Greek, which means the originals are either lost (anyone here believing in any form of divine preservation?), or written in Greek (which would still make the Greek superior?). And then there is Romans, written by Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, to the Church in Rome, consisting of Gentiles (Rom. 1:13-17). Why would he write Aramaic? Similar arguments can be made for some other books.

Paul would write in Aramaic for the same reason that Josephus composed his works first in Aramaic for the Jews who lived in the Diaspora. even though in the Greek empire, the Greek language was not the most prevalent, and this was especially the case for those of differing ethnic backgrounds who lived within the Empire. i've spent the last year doing verse-by-verse comparison of Paul's letters in the Aramaic and the Greek, because in my opinion, THAT is where the Peshitta-Primacy position would stand or fall most strongly. i've got a book and a half left to finish, but so far my findings are that the Peshitta position of Aramaic originality far outweighs the Greek from a textual standpoint. this can be seen in variant explanations, wordplays, poetic structures, etcetera. if you're interested, i can share more of the evidences of this with you. just send me a pm and we can work out the email info.

Andrej Wrote:It does seem quite logical that the first NT books were written in Aramaic, but i do wonder, does anyone on this board believe (or did anyone seriously consider) that maybe a part of the New Testament was written in Aramaic, whereas a part was written in Greek?

6) Does anyone here believe that the NT should not contain the "Western five"? Does anyone here believe that the Aramaic "Western Five" are superior to the Greek text?

7) Does anyone here believe the Syriac OT is superior to the Hebrew?

you will find opinions of varying degrees on this site to the above questions. don't assume any one single position is held by all. best to ask individually if you need to know.

Andrej Wrote:9) Although i read that this Forum is "Theologically neutral", do most of the Aramaic Primacy believers come from the "Church of the East"? Are there any famous adherents outside of the HACACotE?

you will find individuals from many different "denominations" represented here who hold to it. more and more, it seems, the Messianic community is coming to see the validity of Peshitta-Primacy.

hope those perspectives help!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#3
I may be wrong. But I thought Peshitta was originally written in Aramaic (with Hebrew Alphabets in 1st century). Peshitta may have been transferred into Estrangela letters in the 2nd century. As you all know, Aramaic in Judea was called Hebrew Dialect. For Example, I believe Original of Revelation was written in Aramaic (but with Hebrew Alphabets). I think Andrew Roth mentioned something about this long time ago.
Reply
#4
On #5, I have considered the possibility that the original NT texts were a composite of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, maybe some Latin. That perhaps the Greeks were the first to compile it all into Greek, and that later on the Peshitta NT compiled it into a more concise and consistent Syriac, carrying with it a better representation of the original idioms. But these are just suppositions on my part, without any hard evidence to back it up.

On #7, my understanding is that the Peshitta OT is a translation of the Hebrew. So that is the level I assign to it.
Reply
#5
Thanks so much for all the answers. Anyone here that can answer the remaining questions, no.

Also, i remembered another question:
13) Did anyone consider that the varying Greek texts come from different interpretations of the Aramaic? Like, there was one translation into Greek, but later, someone felt the need to correct some of the Greek based on the aramaic, and thus we have the differences?

And a new question came up, since the Peshitta is supposed to be nearly the same:
Burning one Wrote:from what i am aware of, there are around 350 Peshitta manuscripts. as for "families," this may not be the best term to use as it is understood in the Greek textual criticism realm. there is the Eastern and the Western Peshitta, with the Western being referred to usually as the Peshitto instead of the Peshitta, but even then some less-specific may still call the Peshitto the Peshitta. but there is a difference between them. the Western Peshitto contains the Western 5, plus a very minor set of variation elsewhere in the text.

Someone posted a link to a Book on this forum, i read a few chapters, and this stuck out: The disputed passage in 1 John v.7 is not to be found in [...] any copy of the Syriac scriptures which I have yet seen.. i looked up 1 John 5:7 on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->, and the two Peshitta sources differ, as do the translations. Is this one of the very few differences?

Burning one Wrote:the consonance between the Peshitta texts is a whopping 99.995%, if i recall correctly. the consonance between the Greek is actually much less than you've suggested: the 7 best Greek manuscripts only contain a 62.9% agreement, as tallied by Kurt Aland, in The Text of the New Testament, and this was ignoring verses with only one variant reading, at that.
i don't mean to disagree, but it seems like there were two sets of measurement at work. 99.5% is word-by-word, ignoring variances in spelling, i think. i do not know, how 62.9% came to be, but, if you measure book-by-book, NOT ignoring spelling, you may even reach 0% (since someone may have misspelled one single word, making it 0% agreement for that book).

Burning one Wrote:Paul would write in Aramaic for the same reason that Josephus composed his works first in Aramaic for the Jews who lived in the Diaspora. even though in the Greek empire, the Greek language was not the most prevalent, and this was especially the case for those of differing ethnic backgrounds who lived within the Empire.
So you would say that Paul would write Aramaic even to a group of people he clearly and exclusively labeled as gentiles (like in Romans)? i think there can't be any argument about the Diaspora here, since Paul would surely make a distinct greeting for the Jews (Else, they would be offended for being called gentiles.) If Greek was not bridge language, what was (Latin?)? Do you mean to say Roman gentiles spoke Aramaic?

Thanks for all your help with this, please do not misunderstand my wish for clarification, i actually kind of wish Aramaic primacy is true (makes a whole lot of Greek textual criticism unnecessary), it would be awesome to have Jesus' completely original and untranslated words available. But i won't accept this without having reached certainty that there is reason to believe this.

Is anyone able to help me out with questions 2), 8 ), 10), 11), 12)

Thanks Jerry, Konway87, Burning One!!!
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#6
Here's my thoughts and speculations on primacy:
There was likely some sort of corroboration between Aramaic and Greek texts, as proposed in Roth's Signs of the Cross. This would be similar in style to the Aramaic composition of Josephus. It's up for grabs as to exactly how the Greek and Aramaic texts developed across the languages, but it's a probable solution as some points have varying strength when comparing Greek and Aramaic witnesses, neither undermining the antiquity of the Aramaic Peshitta nor of select Greek manuscript family/families. I believe a better critical text can be achieved by starting with the Peshitta and making amendments from variants found in the oldest Greek manuscripts. I also think that some form of Greek versions of all the books have the apostles' stamp of approval, but also that some of them differ from the commonly accepted texts used by translations today. To the greatest extent possible, Peshitta scholarship should try its best to show the corroboration with Greek witnesses instead of ignoring them.
Reply
#7
Aaron S Wrote:I believe a better critical text can be achieved by starting with the Peshitta and making amendments from variants found in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

What sort of ammendments might be possible? Could you give an example perhaps?

Quote: I also think that some form of Greek versions of all the books have the apostles' stamp of approval,


Would you include, say, 2 Peter in this?

Quote:but also that some of them differ from the commonly accepted texts used by translations today.

Can you explain further?

Thanks.
Reply
#8
judge Wrote:
Quote: I also think that some form of Greek versions of all the books have the apostles' stamp of approval,


Would you include, say, 2 Peter in this?

I believe that jews, just like todays jews, and arabs and all semitic people together, more or less understood Aramaic then, as Arabic is understood today and so, in Rome, the jews also could understand Aramaic.

Certainly, somebody who spoke it and learned it from his parent, could work with common language, saying hello and bye etc. I also see 3th generation berbers and maroc people who speak 50% arabic and 50% Dutch (for instance). They even have lines, where they mix up foreign words with Dutch words.

That said, I don't believe that Greek was produced at the same time as when apostles wrote them. The letters were sent and read at the synagoge(s) and somebody else could translate it.

But as usual, making common mistakes or common variations.
For example: The Arabic word for 'hate' has the same meaning as Aramaic. It also includes: "to ignore oneself/another." A 'common' translator, would translate it to 'hate'. So you get lines as: "God hated esau, but he loved Jacob"... well, well...

So, really good translators, who understand that single words could make a lot of difference in meaning.

The Greek document tree, derives from 4 (some say 2) roots. Alexandria, Byzantium, Antioch etc. The differences between the Greek wording, prove that there was an Aramaic original. So, I think that translation happened independently, it even might have been without apostles consent? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Because -some- variations straightly and clearly show that the translator was unknown with some Judaistic traditions and simply choose the wrong words because he had no idea of what was going on.

eg. Matthew 23:13; Luke 20:47; Mark 12:40 have all the wrong translation.

What is the relation between long prayers and devouring widow's houses? According to G.D. Bauscher, who is an excellent translator, 1 Aramaic word for 'pretention' could _also_ be translated as 'offering' so, Jesus was talking about people who were asking offers (money) for long prayers.

IF the apostles could understand Greek, they certainly would not have agreed to such wrong vague translation.
Reply
#9
Andrej Wrote:i don't mean to disagree, but it seems like there were two sets of measurement at work. 99.5% is word-by-word, ignoring variances in spelling, i think. i do not know, how 62.9% came to be, but, if you measure book-by-book, NOT ignoring spelling, you may even reach 0% (since someone may have misspelled one single word, making it 0% agreement for that book).

the number Kurt Aland gives does indeed take into consideration spelling variances, but it also takes into consideration actual differences in terms found between the Greek, so that a 0% difference cannot be reached. spelling differences between the Greek are prolific, as is changes in word order in sentences, but those are not as problematic as the actual differences between the contents of the varying texts. those are what are important, and when held up to the content of the Peshitta, spelling differences aside, there are only a few places where content differs. between the Eastern and Western Peshitta, there are only a few actual differences of content. these are found in Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and one other that i noticed in Hebrews, but don't recall the exact verse off the top of my head. this makes for a consonance in content far superior than the myriads of dissonant readings in the Greek texts.

Andrej Wrote:So you would say that Paul would write Aramaic even to a group of people he clearly and exclusively labeled as gentiles (like in Romans)? i think there can't be any argument about the Diaspora here, since Paul would surely make a distinct greeting for the Jews (Else, they would be offended for being called gentiles.) If Greek was not bridge language, what was (Latin?)? Do you mean to say Roman gentiles spoke Aramaic?

in Romans the group he speaks to is twofold, both Hebrew and Gentile. it is not just Gentiles. this he makes clear in the text itself, as he addresses both in the letter. and this would be expected, of course, because there probably wasn't any group of Gentile-only believers in the Diaspora, since Paul went forth into the cities preaching mostly in the synagogues, where both Jews and Gentiles who believed in the Hebrew deity would worship together, and where the people could thus come to belief in Messiah. we must remember that the actual bridge language of the Middle East was not exactly Greek, but Aramaic, as it had the longest and most widespread influence. Greek was present, and it certainly was used, but it seems that Aramaic had a stronger presence among the nations that comprised the Roman Empire, since their arm was so far-reaching. this goes along with the testimony of the historian Josephus, as i mentioned before, who wrote to other Jews in the Diaspora in Aramaic. it would be the same for Paul, who was writing to both Jews and Gentiles who had taken the step in the "Jewish" direction in the first place to even be in a position to care about a Jewish Messiah.

hope that makes sense! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#10
Both Aramaic and and Hebrew have the same 24-letter alphabet, and in the First Century both used the same cryptic script as found in the Dead Sea Scolls. Dave Bauscher demonstrates this quite clearly in his New Testament translation (The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English, Lulu Publishing)

Both Aramaic Enstrangelo and Hebrew Ashuri came many years later.

Otto
Reply
#11
Actually, Aramaic and Hebrew have 22 letters.....

Otto
Reply
#12
In The Text of the New Testament by the famous Greek scholars Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Second Edition, 1989), the number of seriously variant verses among the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament is carefully documented (page 29). They define seriously variant to be two or more major word differences.

They found that 37.1% of the verses were significantly different among the Greek versions of the New Testament. Hence they found that 62.9% of the verses had less than two major differences. Among the Gospels the ratio is close to 50% of the verses that are signifcacntly different.

Of course, in addition there are many additional verses that have meaningful small diffences as well.

Otto
Reply
#13
Burning one Wrote:the number Kurt Aland gives does indeed take into consideration spelling variances, but it also takes into consideration actual differences in terms found between the Greek, so that a 0% difference cannot be reached. spelling differences between the Greek are prolific, as is changes in word order in sentences, but those are not as problematic as the actual differences between the contents of the varying texts. those are what are important, and when held up to the content of the Peshitta, spelling differences aside, there are only a few places where content differs.
Please accept my apologies for being unclear. As English is not my mother tongue, i sometimes express myself quite clumsy. The 0% referred to agreement, not disagreement. i will try to illustrate what i attempted to say.

Let's assume this to be a Chapter of a book:
1:1 The realisation of God's grace is a chief element to the obtaining of salvation.
1:2 Beginning at Calvary, the fire of the Gospel could not be extinguished.
1:3 God's grace can give salvation to everybody.

Now, the same "chapter" from a different source:
1:1 The realization of God's grace is a chief element to the obtaining of salvation.
1:2 Beginning at Calvary, the fire of the Gospel could not be obliterated.
1:3 God's grace will give salvation to everybody.

Now, exactly how much agreement there is, expressed in a percentage, depends on unit and method of measurement. For the above example, we could draw the following numbers:
There are 33 words, of which 32 agree in sense. This makes up for 96.97% agreement.
There are 33 words, of which 31 agree except for spelling variances. This makes up for 93.94% agreement.
There are 33 words, of which 30 agree exactly. This makes up for 90.91% agreement.

Also, we could say:
There are 3 verses, of which 2 agree in sense. This makes up for 66.66% agreement.
There are 3 verses, of which 1 agrees except for spelling variances. This makes up for 33.33% agreement.
There are 3 verses, of which 0 agree exactly. This makes up for 0.00% agreement.

Of course, the same can be done not only with words and verses, but also with chapters, and books (unit). Also, we could decide to measure not only spelling variances and sense, but also theological implications, errors in spelling, paragraphs, style, ... (method).

Seeing the numbers from Aland, and the ones you gave from the Peshitta, i kind of got the idea that there were different measures at hand, which makes the numbers unworthy of comparison, as Proverbs 20:10 says (Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.).

Still, i was able to comprehend that the Peshitta manuscripts are far more uniform than the Greek ones, irrespective of the exact numbers. And for that information i am, of course, thankful.

Burning one Wrote:between the Eastern and Western Peshitta, there are only a few actual differences of content. these are found in Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and one other that i noticed in Hebrews, but don't recall the exact verse off the top of my head.
What about 1John 5:7-8?

Burning one Wrote:it would be the same for Paul, who was writing to both Jews and Gentiles who had taken the step in the "Jewish" direction in the first place to even be in a position to care about a Jewish Messiah.

hope that makes sense! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Yes, it does. i was originally referring to the greeting, which indicates Gentiles-only readers (Romans 1:13+14). But, of course, reading on, the letter also indicates Jewish readers (2:14+17 etc). This is also made clear in Acts 28. i realize my mistake.
About preaching in synagogues, you are obviously right about this too. Concerning author/audience, i still have some reservations concerning Luke's Gospel and the "western five" though.

ograabe Wrote:In The Text of the New Testament by the famous Greek scholars Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Second Edition, 1989), the number of seriously variant verses among the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament is carefully documented (page 29). They define seriously variant to be two or more major word differences.
So major word differences means different words, as opposed to different spelling?
ograabe Wrote:They found that 37.1% of the verses were significantly different among the Greek versions of the New Testament. Hence they found that 62.9% of the verses had less than two major differences. Among the Gospels the ratio is close to 50% of the verses that are signifcacntly different.
i am not trying to defend the Greek texts, but one also has to take into account that the way the Greek texts were copied varied greatly from the Aramaic, and that many of the texts available today were actually rejected copies (i am quite certain the Peshitta tradition would have destroyed such copies instantly) that were hidden away in monasteries for centuries. Many of these are, to my knowledge, clearly known to be bad copies, and should not be included in such a comparison.

i only say this, because i actually have access to a number of Greek manuscripts, and Aland's numbers don't seem to agree with what i can access (because copies that are certainly known to be corrupted are not available that much).

Thanks again for any answers.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#14
The errors in the Greek versions of the New Testament are not minor copying errors. They are major deviations!

Hundreds of verses are eitther missing entirely or butchered in the Alexandrian text that is now so popular.


Otto
Reply
#15
Shlama,

my replies are below:

Andrej Wrote:Please accept my apologies for being unclear. As English is not my mother tongue, i sometimes express myself quite clumsy. The 0% referred to agreement, not disagreement. i will try to illustrate what i attempted to say.

Let's assume this to be a Chapter of a book:
1:1 The realisation of God's grace is a chief element to the obtaining of salvation.
1:2 Beginning at Calvary, the fire of the Gospel could not be extinguished.
1:3 God's grace can give salvation to everybody.

Now, the same "chapter" from a different source:
1:1 The realization of God's grace is a chief element to the obtaining of salvation.
1:2 Beginning at Calvary, the fire of the Gospel could not be obliterated.
1:3 God's grace will give salvation to everybody.

Now, exactly how much agreement there is, expressed in a percentage, depends on unit and method of measurement. For the above example, we could draw the following numbers:
There are 33 words, of which 32 agree in sense. This makes up for 96.97% agreement.
There are 33 words, of which 31 agree except for spelling variances. This makes up for 93.94% agreement.
There are 33 words, of which 30 agree exactly. This makes up for 90.91% agreement.

Also, we could say:
There are 3 verses, of which 2 agree in sense. This makes up for 66.66% agreement.
There are 3 verses, of which 1 agrees except for spelling variances. This makes up for 33.33% agreement.
There are 3 verses, of which 0 agree exactly. This makes up for 0.00% agreement.

Of course, the same can be done not only with words and verses, but also with chapters, and books (unit). Also, we could decide to measure not only spelling variances and sense, but also theological implications, errors in spelling, paragraphs, style, ... (method).

Seeing the numbers from Aland, and the ones you gave from the Peshitta, i kind of got the idea that there were different measures at hand, which makes the numbers unworthy of comparison, as Proverbs 20:10 says (Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.).

Still, i was able to comprehend that the Peshitta manuscripts are far more uniform than the Greek ones, irrespective of the exact numbers. And for that information i am, of course, thankful.

Burning one Wrote:i definitely see what you are saying now, thank you for clarifying. i won't address it as extensively as i would have, as i hope the actual quote that Otto posted helped make better sense for you of what they were doing to arrive at the number. the book itself has a great chart that lists the variants per book of the NT, so you can tally it up for yourself. i'll see if i can find an image online to share with you, if it would help any further, in case you don't have access to a copy.

Andrej Wrote:What about 1John 5:7-8?

Burning one Wrote:there is no variant in 1st John 5:7-8 within the Peshitta. if you are looking at the verse parsing from the dukhrana page, which i am assuming is what you are referencing, then all you are reading is a difference in what part of the same content ends / begins the verses. both the 1905 and the Khabouris Codex contain the same readings, it is only the way that they are parsed into "verses" that make them seem different. if you read the content of the Aramaic, however, you will see that both manuscripts line up. the only difference is what is contained in the Peshitta and that reading found in a few later Greek manuscripts, which is extremely dubious in origin.

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)