Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1Corinthians 13:3
#1
Shlama Akhay,

In some manuscripts of the Greek versions of the NT we read with astonishment:

Quote:"And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3, GNT)

WOW. What an dumb reading! Here's how the error was made:

The Aramaic root [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]dqy [/font]can, and does indeed, mean "to burn"......HOWEVER, it can also mean "to boast."

It is obvious that Zorba mistranslated this word and the entire meaning of the verse was confused...here is the original reading of the Aramaic:

Quote:"And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3, Peshitta)

So the disagreement in the Greek texts points to an Aramaic original!

The reading kauchvswmai (kauchswmai, "I might boast") is in manuscripts like ??46 ?? A B 048 33 1739* .

The competing reading, kauqhvsomai (kauqhsomai, "I will burn"), is found in C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers. A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: kauqhvswmai (kauqhswmai) ("I might burn") and kauqh' ("it might be burned") read by 1505.

BTW - Dr. Bruce Metzger (the ultimate Greek primacist) notes that the latter reading is a "grammatical monstrosity that cannot be attributed to Paul" (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, page 498).

Maybe, just maybe none of the Greek can be attributable to Paul? <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
I already plagiarised that for the big one, hehe. I want to do imitator/zealous next, be sure to say all you know of it

Regards,

Chris
Reply
#3
Hi...can any tell me just what this word is and how it sounds in english.

Also how do we know that it has these two meanings?

Paul, can you explain the wordplay that occurs in James 3.5.

How is the same root usewd twicw here?
Reply
#4
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhay,

In some manuscripts of the Greek versions of the NT we read with astonishment:

Quote:"And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3, GNT)


Forgive me if you have addressed this elsewhere.

Unlike the gospels, it seems counter-intuitive to me to hold that either book of Corinthians was written in anything but Greek. I mean, Corinth is in Greece, after all. Do you think that Paul was writing to a Aramaic speaking congregation in Greece, or to someone who would translate Paul's Aramaic into Greek (Luke perhaps) or something else? If Paul was writing in Aramaic to a congregation in Greece, why was he doing so?

Zechariah14
Reply
#5
Zech this is very easy question to answer. If I write to Dutch relatives in Germany, do I write in German? I am more likely of course to write in Dutch or English.

Know this also, in Britain even are found Aramaic inscriptions. First the Aramaic speaking Israelites were spread throughtout Europe, then the Aramaic speaking Judeans were spread throughout the world.

Since Judeans, who were expecting a MESSIAH were often the first to accept Jesus (the 12, the 70 etc) it makes sense for Paul to write to them in Aramaic, no matter where they were <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

By the same flawed logic, Romans would maybe be written in Latin, while in truth the Latin AND Greek clearly stem from Aramaic.
Reply
#6
Zechariah14 Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Forgive me if you have addressed this elsewhere.

Unlike the gospels, it seems counter-intuitive to me to hold that either book of Corinthians was written in anything but Greek. I mean, Corinth is in Greece, after all. Do you think that Paul was writing to a Aramaic speaking congregation in Greece, or to someone who would translate Paul's Aramaic into Greek (Luke perhaps) or something else? If Paul was writing in Aramaic to a congregation in Greece, why was he doing so?

Zechariah14

Shlama Zechariah,

Mar Khananyah Dinkha, the current Patriarch of the Church of the East, writes epistles to the churches all over the world in Aramaic (even if they don't speak Aramaic, like the churches in India, USA, etc.) It is impossible for Mar Dinkha to learn every language in the world, so that he can write it in their language. He speaks and writes only Aramaic.

There is 1 language in the Church - Aramaic. Just like Latin for the Roman Rite, the CoE uses Aramaic to communicate all over the world. In each location, there are learned priests, deacons and bishops who understand the language and interpret it for their congregation in their local language (i.e., into Malayalam in India, etc.)

I hope this answers your question about why Paul would have written his epistles in Aramaic (even if he sent one to China or to Mozambique.) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
Paul Younan Wrote:I hope this answers your question about why Paul would have written his epistles in Aramaic (even if he sent one to China or to Mozambique.) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Hi Paul and Chris,
thank you for your answers. I would say that the answers show that Paul *could* have written in Aramaic, but not necessarily that he *would* have. Whereas the current Patriarch of the Church of the East may not speak Malayalam, Scripture tells us that Paul *did* speak Greek (Acts 21: 37).

Zechariah14
Reply
#8
Zechariah14 Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:I hope this answers your question about why Paul would have written his epistles in Aramaic (even if he sent one to China or to Mozambique.) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Hi Paul and Chris,
thank you for your answers. I would say that the answers show that Paul *could* have written in Aramaic, but not necessarily that he *would* have. Whereas the current Patriarch of the Church of the East may not speak Malayalam, Scripture tells us that Paul *did* speak Greek (Acts 21: 37).

Zechariah14

It's also a question of preference. Paul may have spoken Greek like my Father or Mother spoke English. If that was the case, then no learned Greek would have listened to him with any degree of seriousness.

Speaking and writing are two different things, as well. My parents could speak somewhat broken English, enough to do what they needed to do in this country. Neither of them could read it, let alone write it.

The Patriarch before the current one spoke and wrote 5 different languages (Aramaic, Kurdish, Turkish, Arabic and English.) He still sent every single epistle he ever wrote in Aramaic (and ANCIENT Aramaic at that!)

Really, I think the geographical location where the believers lived has very little to do with what language Paul would have written to them in.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Paul Younan Wrote:The Patriarch before the current one spoke and wrote 5 different languages (Aramaic, Kurdish, Turkish, Arabic and English.) He still sent every single epistle he ever wrote in Aramaic (and ANCIENT Aramaic at that!)

Doesn't that have something to do with the "holiness" in which the language is viewed? I suspect Paul would not have held either Greek or Aramaic as holy languages, but rather (possibly) as languages of the people.

Zechariah14
Reply
#10
Not only because of its "holy" status, but also because of common sense. Most of the Church understands it. Those who don't can get it translated by those who do. The Patriarch knows Aramaic best, and there can only be one language to use in church affairs in things are to remain consistent and efficient.

I would like to add that Paul as a Pharisee would definitely have viewed both Hebrew and Aramaic as "holy languages", since both are present in the scriptures he used.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#11
Paul Younan Wrote:I would like to add that Paul as a Pharisee would definitely have viewed both Hebrew and Aramaic as "holy languages", since both are present in the scriptures he used.

Hi Paul, I understand that Aramaic is used in Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah, and an Aramaic word appears in Genesis. However, the descendants of the Pharisees that wrote the Mishna had a much lower opinion of Aramaic than Hebrew, and would certainly apply the meaning of Zephaniah 3: 9 to the Hebrew language and none other.

Zechariah14
Reply
#12
Zechariah14 Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:I would like to add that Paul as a Pharisee would definitely have viewed both Hebrew and Aramaic as "holy languages", since both are present in the scriptures he used.

Hi Paul, I understand that Aramaic is used in Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah, and an Aramaic word appears in Genesis. However, the descendants of the Pharisees that wrote the Mishna had a much lower opinion of Aramaic than Hebrew, and would certainly apply the meaning of Zephaniah 3: 9 to the Hebrew language and none other.

Zechariah14

Hi Zechariah,

I understand what you are saying, but please understand one thing. All learned Jews know that the language we today call "Hebrew" in fact existed in the land of Canaan before the Hebrews arrived there from Beth-Nahrain.

The Patriarchs were Arameans and they spoke Aramaic. This is why Jacob was called "the wandering Aramean." This is also why they chose their wives (eg., Rebkah and Leah) from among their relatives in Syria (Aram.)

Mishna or no Mishna, the fact remains that portions of the Old Testament were originally penned in the Aramaic language - so Aramaic has the right to be called a biblical tongue by Jewish standards. The same cannot be said for Greek - not one word in the Old Testament was originally penned in Greek.

I'm not even counting all the other written sources in Aramaic which were revered over the centuries - especially the Targums and BOTH Talmuds.

I'm sorry - but you cannot take away the relevance of Aramaic from either Jewish life or writing. Not only are they ARAMEANS by birth and lineage, but the current alphabet they use is based on the Aramaic script used in Assyria. This is why they call it "Ashurit."

Jewish Christians simply carried on the tradition of using their forefathers' language, the one that Meshikha and the Apostles themselves used. We have that tradition still intact.

Again - just because Paul could converse in Greek doesn't mean that he wrote in it. His primary language was Aramaic, which even the Greek versions testify to.

Likewise, just because Corinth is in Greece doesn't mean that the Epistle he wrote to them was in Greek..... anymore so than the Epistle he wrote to the Romans was in Latin. Using the "geographical location" argument, then we should expect that he wrote in Latin, right?

The question is not where a particular congregation existed, but who compromised the population? Every early church began in a synagogue - and the people who held the leadership positions were in fact former Jews.

I'm in Chicago ( a lot farther from the Aramaic homeland than Corinth is <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> ) and I receive regular epistles from Mar Dinkha in Aramaic. They are quickly translated into English for the Latino, African-American, German, Indian and Filipino members of my particular parish.

I think the same thing happened in Corinth, and therefore you have the very early Greek versionS of these Epistles.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#13
Paul Younan Wrote:The question is not where a particular congregation existed, but who compromised the population? Every early church began in a synagogue - and the people who held the leadership positions were in fact former Jews.

Hi Paul, and thank you for your reply. One comment on your statement I highlighted above. It is off-topic, but I think it is important enough to address.

The leaders were not former Jews. They were still Jews who happened to believe that the Messiah of Israel had come. One doesn't stop being Jewish when he believes in Yeshua.

Zechariah14
Reply
#14
The "Jewish" BAR-Mitzvah uses the Aramaic Bar instead of Hebrew Ben...

"The leaders were not former Jews. They were still Jews who happened to believe that the Messiah of Israel had come. One doesn't stop being Jewish when he believes in Yeshua.
"

Depends on your definition. If the definition is race, of course you are right. if the definition is Pharisaic Judaism, then they were Christians later, no longer "Jews". This is in religious terms. You cannot be Buddhist AND Christian for instance.
Reply
#15
drmlanc Wrote:Depends on your definition. If the definition is race, of course you are right. if the definition is Pharisaic Judaism, then they were Christians later, no longer "Jews". This is in religious terms. You cannot be Buddhist AND Christian for instance.

This is perhaps crossing over the line of Peshitta vs. theology, but may I point out the words of Paul?

"Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!" (Acts 23: 6)

Even Paul didn't stop being a Jewish Pharisee, at least according to his own words.

Jews are still Jews even after coming to faith in Messiah Yeshua. Paul was not a former Pharisee or a former Jew when he testified in Acts 23.

Zechariah14
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)