"Torrey thought the Old Syriac gospels were translations made by Jews from Palestine and the Peshitta was also a translation. His own theories of Aramaic originals have been largely rejected by scholars, in large part because of the findings in contemporary Greek texts by Deissmann, Grenfell, and Hunt. Edgar Goodspeed, a linguist and specialist in Semitic languages without peer, extensively criticized Torrey"
In what book(s)? I found a Goodspeed book discussing Torrey re: Acts, but didn't locate a Goodspeed book addressing Torrey's _Our Translated Gospels_ (1936).
"and pointed out how Semiticists disagreed among themselves"
Of course they disagree-- they're humans.
"Torrey’s historical view that all of the New Testament was written before 50 CE is not followed by any critical scholars"
_Documents of the Primitive Church_ by Charles Cutler Torrey (1941), 309pp., on 241-242
https://archive.org/details/documentsofp...0/mode/1up
....the fact is of no little importance that we have here, in plain words, an example of the early Christian assertion that the day of verbal inspiration had returned. The claim that John is an inspired prophet and that his book is holy scripture is as clear and emphatic as any words can make it. This brings the date of the book within narrow limits. The absurdity of supposing that this Aramaic document claiming Jewish canonicity could have been put forth after its doctrine had been officially pronounced damnable heresy is obvious. It certainly was published before the year 80. But this is not all; a date before the year 70 is plainly indicated. If the book had been written between 70 and 80 there certainly would have been in it some allusion to the great catastrophe. Silence in regard to it, in view of the author's intense interest in the holy city, is simply inconceivable.
Moreover, the date cannot have been much _before_ 70. The theology of the book has advanced some distance beyond that of our earliest Christian writings. As Swete remarks, pp. cliv f.,
"No one who comes to the Apocalypse fresh from the study of the Gospels and Epistles can fail to recognize that he has passed into another atmosphere.... The Christ of the Apocalypse is the Christ of the Gospels, but a change has passed over Him which is beyond words."
The Church doctrine has progressed.
It is to be observed how the results thus reached, a date shortly before the year 70, confirms the explicit statement of the author of Rev., that he wrote in the time of the sixth emperor before the seventh had come to the throne; that is, in the year 68.
The fact has already been emphasized, that the terror of the Beast is over all the latter half of the book. The horrible scenes of the year 64, in Rome, are fresh in mind. There is no need to conjecture what the steadfast Christians would be called upon to face, on the return of the Beast. The farther away from Nero's reign the book is dated, the more incomprehensible is the amount of space given to this apprehension.
A most important passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning (the first two verses) of chapter 11, where John is commanded to take a reed (Ezek. 40:3 ff.) and measure the temple and the altar; but not to measure the court of the Gentiles, symbolic of the tribulation still to be endured. Jerusalem and the temple are standing, the armies of Titus have not yet entered the city. This was written before the year 70....
=====================================
_Problems of New Testament Translation_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1945), using 'Search inside' for: Aramaic
https://archive.org/details/problemsofnewtes0000good/
Page 21
The word [i.e. raca] has long perplexed translators and interpreters and has led to much speculation. No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported. There is a Hebrew root from which such a word might have arisen, but no occurrence of this form from that root in either Aramaic or Hebrew has been pointed out. Dr. Colwell quotes Augustine as saying that a Jew "told him it was a word without meaning, an interjection expressing indignation."^1
Jennings pg. 211
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/Jennings/page.php?p=211
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
https://cal.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=rq+N%20&cits=all
rq, rqˀ (rāq, rāqā) n.m. vile person
vile person Gal, CPA, Syr. BR 278:9(1) : דהוה אמ׳ להון רקייה . P Mt5:22 : ܘܟܼܽܠ ܕܿܢܼܐܡܲܪ ܠܲܐܚܘܼܗ̱ܝ ܪܲܩܲܐ whoever says to his brother: vile one!.
Greek ῥακά.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1488[743]; DJPA: 529b; Payne-Smith: ~3972; J. Payne-Smith: 549; DCPA[Schulthess]: 407[197];
======================================
"Goodspeed is trying to make sense of the Greek texts that have ραχα instead of ρακα"
Do you agree with Goodspeed that "No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported"?
Magiera's concordance has 'r-u-q-a' i.e. spit at Jn 9,6.
She lists 'r-q' i.e. spit for
Mt 26,67
27,30
Mk 7,33
8,23
10,34
14,65
15,19
Lk 18,32
Jn 9,6
===============================================
“It probably meant something like ‘vile person’, but I doubt we can recover the exact sense as used by Jesus in his day”
What do you think the Aramaic r-q and r-u-q-h in John 9:6 mean?
John 9:6 (based on Younan)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
And when he said these things
he r-q [spat] upon the ground
and mixed clay with r-u-q-h [his spit]
and he rubbed it upon the eyes of that blind (man).
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
http://cal.huc.edu/getlex.php?coord=620430906&word=3
rqq vb. a/u to spit
possibly rather still the etymological rwq in earlier texts
G View a KWIC
to spit Com. TAD C1.1(Ahiqar) .133 : ועל אחר֗[ן י]ה֗נשגון כדבתה ויר{ו}קן באנפוהי but in the end they shall find out his lies and spit in his face. TgJ 1Sam17:43tos : דלא אירוק בך ותטבע ברוקי lest I spit on you and you drown in my spit. P Lv15:8 : ܐܢ ܢܪܘܩ ܗܿܘ ܡܿܢ ܕܕܐܿܒ ܥܠ ܡܿܢ ܕܕܟܐ if someone with an impure emission spits on someone who is clean. P Dt25:9 : ܬܪܘܩ ܒܐ̈ܦܘܗܝ she should spit in his face. BT Šab 145b(17) : ר׳ יוחנן {{ד}}ייק מכותחא דבבלאי PN used to spit at the mention of [lit. from] the k.-dish of the Babylonians. GS 7:19 : mˁ^a^ka ḏraq ruqa mn pumẖ uˁtkamar bilẖ mn riš is there anyone that has spat out spittle from his mouth and gone back and swallowed it anew?. TgEsth2 3:8(3) : וכד חזיין לנא רקקין בארעא when they see us they spit on the ground.
D View a KWIC
to spit much CPA.
C View a KWIC
to spit Syr. JSB2 814:16 : ܬܗܦܘܟ ܬܲܪܸܩ spit it back out.
Gt View a KWIC
1 to be spat on Syr. ES1 282:19 .
2 impers. Syr. Gr 105:20 : ܐܢܕܝܢ ܡܬܪܩܩ ܠܢ ܒܐܦ̈ܝܢ if we are spat on upon our faces.
palpel View a KWIC
to spit CPA.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1490[742]; DJPA: 530a; DJBA: 1094b; Jastrow: 1498; Drower/Macuch: 437b, 424a, 431b; Payne-Smith: 3972; J. Payne-Smith: 549; Levy Ch-W: 2:436; Tal Sam: 853; DCPA[Schulthess]: 407[197]; DJA: 80a;
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
http://cal.huc.edu/getlex.php?coord=620430906&word=9
rwq, rwqˀ (roq, ruqqā) n.m. spit
1 spittle JLAtg, Gal, CPA, Syr, JBAmb, JBA, JBAg, Man, LJLA. TgJ Is50:6 : אַפַי לָא טַמַרִית מֵאִתכְנָעוּ וְרוֹק [=MT פָּנַי לֹא הִסְתַּרְתִּי מִכְּלִמּוֹת וָרֹק]. PalLaws3(1) 101:4 : והיא רקקא קודמוי רוק רב she spits much spittle before him. P Jn9:6 : ܘܲܓܼܒܼܲܠ ܛܼܝܢܵܐ ܡܸܢ ܪܘܼܩܸܗ . JS_Elisha 116:113 : ܒܡܸܠܬܵܐ ܘܪܲܘܩܵܐ ܘܲܒܝܲܡܝܼܢܸܗ ܐܲܣܝܼ ܟܼܐܒܸ̈ܐ He healed pains with a word, spittle, and His right hand. JBABowl 74.1:2 : דנ^י^בש לישניה בפומיה ויתמסי רוקיה בגרגרתי so his tongue dries up in his mouth and his spittle rot in his throat. BT Yev 101b(3) : צריכי דייני למיחזי רוקא כי נפיק מפומא דיבמה the judges must see the spittle as it leaves the mouth of the yevamah. ShPDm 77 : rabun rmabkun ruqa ḏmirtun their leader cast upon you their venomous spittle. PJ Deut25:9 : ומן בתר כדון תירוק קדמוי רוקא נפישא and after that she should spit a lot of spittle in front of him.
2 spitting JLAtg, Syr. TgJ Is50:6 : אַפַי לָא טַמַרִית מֵאִתכְנָעֻו וְרוֹק I did not hide my face from humiliation and spitting.
3 name of a demon JBA. BT San 101a(38) : רוקא דחמת קא חזינא I see the demon, PN, here.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1452[743]; DJPA: 520a; DJBA: 1067a; Jastrow: 1463; Drower/Macuch: 431b; Payne-Smith: ~3972; J. Payne-Smith: 536; Levy Ch-W: 2:435; DCPA[Schulthess]: 395[197]; DJA: 79b;
===============================================
“don’t think about them at all”
Are you aware of any flaws in Torrey’s remarks about the date of Revelation’s composition?
(‘yes: most scholars strenuously disagree’?
‘no: I’m unfamiliar with those remarks of his’?)
===============================================
“Which mss"
_The New Testament in Hebrew: Evidence and Issues_ (2020), 179pp., on 49, 50
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Heb...716048923/
13th Oxford MS Matthew 1:16 "Joseph _father_ of Mary." ....
14th New York MS JTS [Jewish Theological Seminary] "Joseph _father_ of Mary."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q...-mary#8037
Luke gives Joseph's genealogy, while Matthew gives Mary's
This view is much less common than the former, but it has been observed throughout Christian history. Clement of Alexandria expressed this early view, writing,
"And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of the Lord."9
Victorinus of Pettau also believed this, declaring,
"Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh."10
There is no support for this in the extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew, but proponents of this view believe the text has been corrupted and that Matthew originally referred to two Josephs: one being the husband of Mary and the other her father (this is also used to explain the discrepancy with the Lukan account and why the number differs on 14 vs. 13 generations)....
9 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 21.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi...%80%93p125
Also notable is that Irenaeus refutes this view in Adversus haereses, 3.21.9.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix...2%80%93p32
10 Victorinus of Pettau, Apocalypsin, 4.7–10.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi...80%93p11.4
11 Harold A. Blair, "Matthew 1:16 and the Matthaean Genealogy", Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), 149–154.
=========================================
"At the moment I have no interest in reading Torrey’s remarks on the dating of the book of Revelation. I don’t like the book of Revelation"
The Greek Revelation was translated from Aramaic. If anyone wishes to read some details about the atrocious Greek grammar in the Greek translation, see below.
Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
In regard to the strange Greek constructions Norden, quoted above, truly says that in every case of a barbarism the correct usage appears elsewhere in the book. There is no lack of knowledge of Greek idiom. As for the Greek particles, the manner of their use or absence is like what we see throughout the Greek Bible. Here also there is no proof of ignorance. Charles' explanation is decidedly less plausible than the others.
There is excellent reason, however, for one conclusion he reaches―expressed in similar words by many before him―namely, that “the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely unique.” The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature. It is only in the Greek that they are apparent, for it is the form, not the sense, that is affected.
A few of the more striking solecisms are exhibited here in English translation, so that any reader may see their nature.
1:4. “Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come” (all nom. case).
1:15. “His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gend., dative case) as in a furnace purified (fem. gend., sing. no., gen. case)”
11:3. “My witnesses (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth.”
14:14. “I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a son-of-man (accus.), having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown.”
14:19. “He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem.), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God.”
17:4. “A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things (accus.).”
19:20. “The lake of blazing fire (“fire,” neut.; “blazing,” fem.).
20:2. “And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.), who is the Devil and Satan and bound him.”
21:9. “Seven angels, holding the seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues.”
22:5. “They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.).”
This apparent linguistic anarchy has no explanation on the Greek side. It is hardly surprising that to some readers it should have seemed open defiance of grammar, to others a symptom of mental aberration. Nevertheless there is method to it all. The more grotesque these barbarisms, the more certain it is that they are not due to lack of acquaintance with Greek. Each of the rules broken in the passages here cited is faithfully observed in many other places and shown to be perfectly familiar.
....
In fact, underlying all of the amazing solecisms is seen the wording of the Semitic original. The grammatical monstrosities, recognized in their true nature, testify to the execution of a definite purpose carried through with remarkable consistency. When they are examined, they are found to show grammatical appreciation rather than the lack of it. But it is Aramaic grammar!
(Nevertheless, the ideal of a thoroughly accurate translation was incapable of realization, as we know to our sorrow. No Greek translator of an unpointed Semitic text of the extent of this apocalypse could possibly come through without his considerable sheath of mistranslations. We have no knowledge of any such faultless―or even nearly faultless―achievement.*)
What the Greek translator of Revelation does, in the effort to be exactly faithful, is merely an exaggeration of what is regularly and constantly done in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The translators rendered as they did because of the conception of their task. They were handing down works of high importance, and would assume no unnecessary responsibility. What they―each and all―aimed at was to produce a text which could be understood by the Greek reader and at the same should mirror faithfully every word and phrase of the sacred original. This, the original, was the all-important thing, and the fact was always kept in view. The style of the translation was of no consequence; it was not Greek, nor ever intended to be.
*See _Our Translated Gospels_ [by Torrey], chapter 1; _The Four Gospels_ [by Torrey], pages 265-74.
============================================
"Aramaic was spoken in certain areas but it was not the language of the Jews"
What language is "Akeldama"?
Acts 1:19 (NIV)
Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
============================================
“any current critical scholars who argue for Peshitta primacy?”
Does Glenn David Bauscher count as a ‘current critical scholar’?
According to the Greek mss. of the NT, Jesus is headed to hellfire, had feet that were like pillars, and had breasts.
A mistranslation at Greek Rev 1:13 says Jesus has female breasts.
Rev 1:13 (Common English Bible)
“In the middle of the lampstands I saw someone who looked like the Human One. He wore a robe that stretched down to his feet, and he had a gold sash around his chest.[aj]”
The Greek word used here is mastos and is used exclusively for a woman’s breasts.
Rather than using στῆθος/ stethos/ chest, the Greek mss. for Revelation 1:13 speak of Jesus having μαστός/ mastos/ breasts.
Do you have an explanation of the Greek Revelation’s grammatical monstrosities?
=================================================
Does Janet Magiera count as a ‘current critical scholar’?
How about Metzger?
The Greek translation of the original Aramaic has added glosses that explicitly give translations of Aramaic.
I count 10 glosses in Greek mss. of the gospels (plus 1 gloss in Acts).
Both the Aramaic Peshitta and the Arabic Diatesseron lack those glosses.
Do you think those glosses:
were in the original writing of the Greek, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?
arose during the translation of the Aramaic gospels & Acts into Greek?
Do you think Tatian, when assembling his Diatesseron, used gospels that:
had glosses, and then he deleted the glosses before completing his Diatesseron project?
lacked glosses?
Matthew 27:46 (NIV)
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
Mark 5:41 (NASB)
Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, "Talitha kum!" (which translated means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").
Mark 7:11 (Anderson NT)
https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/7-11.htm
But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, What ever of mine might benefit you, is Corban, (which means, a gift,)
Mark 7:34 (NIV)
He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means "Be opened!").
Mark 10:46 (NIV)
Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means "son of Timaeus"), was sitting by the roadside begging.
John 1:38 (Berean Literal)
Then Jesus having turned and having beheld them following, says to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to Him, "Rabbi" (which being translated is to say Teacher), "where are You staying?"
John 1:41 (Berean Literal)
He first finds the own brother Simon and says to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Christ).
John 1:42 (NIV)
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).
John 4:25 (NIV)
The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
John 9:7 (NASB)
and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
Acts 9:36 (Berean Study)
In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which is translated as Dorcas), who was always occupied with works of kindness and charity.
==================================================
"her academic history? Where did she study? What degrees does she have? Peer-reviewed publications?"
All I found was this:
https://www.lightofword.org/index.php
Janet Magiera is an ordained minister and the founder of Light of the Word Ministry A language student since childhood, Jan fell in love with Aramaic in 1979 while studying under a student of Dr. George Lamsa. She started learning how to understand Aramaic and has not stopped for 40 years. In 2004, Jan became frustrated by the lack of credible and accessible Aramaic translations of the Bible. Aside from Lamsa, there were only a few old English translations from the 1850's. Who wants to teach the Bible using the oldest continuously written language of the Middle East translated into the oldest English ever known? She felt it was past time that an accurate and modern translation be written. At that moment, she began to work on the translation herself, something well-researched, easy to understand, and available to everyone. In 2006, the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Library was born and now includes an interlinear, lexicon, concordance, Messianic version, and parallel translations. Jan has also authored topical books on Biblical subjects, including giving, ministries, the armor of God, Hebrew and Aramaic word pictures, and end-times events.
"was not a Peshitta primacist"
Agreed. Is Metzger a "current critical scholar"?
How about Wallace?
"those glosses: were in the original writing of the Greek, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?"
"That sounds reasonable"
Suppose one document is had in 2 different languages.
The version of the document in language X contains glosses.
The version of the document in language Z lacks those glosses.
Does the presence of glosses, and does the absence of glosses, indicate anything about the original language of composition?
Does the presence of untranslated transliterations in a document suggest that that document:
is in the original language of composition?
is a translation?
"the glosses wouldn’t be needed in Syriac"
Were the explanations in the verses below needed?
Matthew 1:23 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-23.htm
"Behold the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bear a son, and they shall call his Name
Emmanuail, which is translated, 'Our God is with us'".
Mark 15:34 (Bauscher)
biblehub.com/hpbt/mark/15.htm
And in the ninth hour Yeshua cried out in a loud voice, and he said:
“Eil, Eil, lemana Shabaqthani”, which is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Mat 27:33 (Magiera)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new...ons-search
And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is interpreted, "The Skull."
Mar 15:22 (Magiera)
And they brought him to Golgotha, the place that is interpreted, The Skull.
Joh 19:17 (Magiera)
bearing his cross, to a place that was called 'The Skull,' but in Hebrew is called Golgotha,
Joh 20:16 (Magiera)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new...ons-search
Jesus said to her, "Mary." And she turned around and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbuli," which means Teacher.
Hebrews 7 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/hebrews/7.htm
1 This Melchizedek is The King of Shalim, Priest of The Most High God, and he met Abraham when he returned from the massacre of Kings and blessed him.
2 And Abraham distributed to him a tenth of everything that he had with him; but his name is interpreted, “King of Righteousness”
and again “King of Shalim”,
which is, “King of Peace”,
//////////////////////////////////
using google translate on Dutch from http://dukhrana.com
John 20:16 - Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabbuli!” that is, “My Master.”
in Hebrew!] - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek NA28. The text is missing from the reading of the Greek MHT and TR.
Rabbuli!] - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'Rabboeni', which is not a Greek term of address, by the way, but a transcription in Greek of the Aramaic term of address, whereby we should know that in Aramaic 'Rabbuli' and 'Rabboeni mean the same. The fact that we read in this verse "in Hebrew" (‹i.e. in the Aramaic Peshitta and in the Greek NA28, but not in the Greek MHT and TR›), has to do with the fact that Aramaic was written in Hebrew letters.
Matthew 27:33 - (When) they came to the place called 'Gagulta', meaning 'The Skull',
Gagulta - this is the Hebrew name according to Jh. 19:17 after the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta, but essentially that name is Aramaic so that in this verse we find two Aramaic words for 'skull', namely, the word used here ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ (‹qarqafta›) translated as 'Skull' and the word ܓ݁ܳܓ݂ܽܘܠܬ݁ܳܐ (‹Gagulta›).
In the Hebrew OT there are two Hebrew words for 'skull'. One of them is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (‹gulgolet - H1538›). See also the note to Jh. 19:17. The names 'Golgotha' and 'Gagulta' differ in sound. We suspect that the names "Golgotha" and "Gagulta" represent two varieties of Aramaic, possibly the Aramaic of Jerusalem and that of Galilee.
The Skull - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'The Place of the Skull'.
John 19:17 - He carried his cross to the place called 'The Skull', but in Hebrew it is called 'Gagulta'.
He carried his cross - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek MHT and TR. The reading of the Greek NA28 reads: 'He Himself bore his cross'.
The Skull - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'The Place of the Skull'.
Hebrew - According to Jastrow's dictionary of Aramaic, the word "Hebrew" in Aramaic can also mean "Aramaic", the language of the Peshitta. Aramaic was and is written by the Jews in Hebrew letters.
Gagulta - this is the Hebrew name according to Jh. 19:17 after the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta, but essentially that name is Aramaic so that we find in this verse two Aramaic words for 'skull', namely the word used here ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ (‹qarqaftā›) translated as 'Skull' and the word ܓ݁ܳܓ݂ܽܘܠܬ݁ܳܐ (‹Gāgūlṫā›).
In the Hebrew OT there are two Hebrew words for 'skull'. One of them is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (‹gūlgolēt - H1538›). .... The names 'Golgotha' and 'Gagulta' differ in sound. We suspect that the names "Golgotha" and "Gagulta" represent two varieties of Aramaic, possibly the Aramaic of Jerusalem and that of Galilee.
======================================================
Are you aware of any mistakes in the Peshitta?
[Paul Younan]"point me to a mistake in the Aramaic Peshitta which arose from a grammatical error while translating from the Greek. In your model, there should be plenty that exist. ....point me to one error in the Peshitta which can only be explained by the Aramaic translator making a grammatical mistake that could have only happened if he had a Greek original in front of him."
==========================================
Of these 4 renditions of John 1:42, which originated:
first?
second?
third?
a) the Aramaic behind:
John 1:42 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/john/1-42.htm
And he brought him to Yeshua
and Yeshua gazed at him and he said:
“You are Shimeon, son of Yona;
you shall be called Kaypha.”
b) the Greek behind:
John 1:42 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/john/1-42.htm
And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said,
"You are Simon son of John.
You will be called Cephas"
(which, when translated, is Peter).
c) the Aramaic behind:
_The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 2, Luke and John) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), with pages numbered 384-850, by E. Jan Wilson, S = Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus, on 682
https://www.amazon.com/Old-Syriac-Gospel...931956189/
S1.42 And he led him and came to our Lord.
Our Lord looked at him and said to him,
You are Simon bar Jonah.
You will be called Cepha,
which translated into Greek is Peter.
d) the Hebrew behind:
_The Hebrew Gospel of John_ version 1.1 (April 2021), 84pp., on 6
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Gospel-Joh...09X512FZH/
And he brought him unto Yeshua.
And Yeshua looked at him, saying,
"You are Shimon the son of [Yonah],^3
you will [be] called Keipha"
(meaning rock).
3: Hebrew name for 'Jonah.'
=========================================
"The attempt to establish an Aramaic underpinning to the Greek NT is really more apologetics than textual criticism"
How would you characterize an "attempt to establish" a Greek "underpinning to the" NT?
"An effort to establish a connection to the historical Jesus that is otherwise debatable"
How so? The Greek translation is a reasonable translation.
=========================================
“Metzger (deceased 2007)”
So Metzger isn’t a “current critical scholar.”
“know of any current critical scholars who argue for Peshitta primacy?”
No.
“No, not necessarily.”
Does the field of textual criticism have any dictums about glosses?
“No and No, not necessarily”
Does the field of textual criticism have any dictums about untranslated transliterations?
"Whose text are you translating from Dutch?"
http://dukhrana.com
Peshitta Tool
check the 2 boxes for:
Evangelische Bijbel Vertaling (EBV) Dutch Peshitta translation
with options: include footnotes
In what book(s)? I found a Goodspeed book discussing Torrey re: Acts, but didn't locate a Goodspeed book addressing Torrey's _Our Translated Gospels_ (1936).
"and pointed out how Semiticists disagreed among themselves"
Of course they disagree-- they're humans.
"Torrey’s historical view that all of the New Testament was written before 50 CE is not followed by any critical scholars"
_Documents of the Primitive Church_ by Charles Cutler Torrey (1941), 309pp., on 241-242
https://archive.org/details/documentsofp...0/mode/1up
....the fact is of no little importance that we have here, in plain words, an example of the early Christian assertion that the day of verbal inspiration had returned. The claim that John is an inspired prophet and that his book is holy scripture is as clear and emphatic as any words can make it. This brings the date of the book within narrow limits. The absurdity of supposing that this Aramaic document claiming Jewish canonicity could have been put forth after its doctrine had been officially pronounced damnable heresy is obvious. It certainly was published before the year 80. But this is not all; a date before the year 70 is plainly indicated. If the book had been written between 70 and 80 there certainly would have been in it some allusion to the great catastrophe. Silence in regard to it, in view of the author's intense interest in the holy city, is simply inconceivable.
Moreover, the date cannot have been much _before_ 70. The theology of the book has advanced some distance beyond that of our earliest Christian writings. As Swete remarks, pp. cliv f.,
"No one who comes to the Apocalypse fresh from the study of the Gospels and Epistles can fail to recognize that he has passed into another atmosphere.... The Christ of the Apocalypse is the Christ of the Gospels, but a change has passed over Him which is beyond words."
The Church doctrine has progressed.
It is to be observed how the results thus reached, a date shortly before the year 70, confirms the explicit statement of the author of Rev., that he wrote in the time of the sixth emperor before the seventh had come to the throne; that is, in the year 68.
The fact has already been emphasized, that the terror of the Beast is over all the latter half of the book. The horrible scenes of the year 64, in Rome, are fresh in mind. There is no need to conjecture what the steadfast Christians would be called upon to face, on the return of the Beast. The farther away from Nero's reign the book is dated, the more incomprehensible is the amount of space given to this apprehension.
A most important passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning (the first two verses) of chapter 11, where John is commanded to take a reed (Ezek. 40:3 ff.) and measure the temple and the altar; but not to measure the court of the Gentiles, symbolic of the tribulation still to be endured. Jerusalem and the temple are standing, the armies of Titus have not yet entered the city. This was written before the year 70....
=====================================
_Problems of New Testament Translation_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1945), using 'Search inside' for: Aramaic
https://archive.org/details/problemsofnewtes0000good/
Page 21
The word [i.e. raca] has long perplexed translators and interpreters and has led to much speculation. No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported. There is a Hebrew root from which such a word might have arisen, but no occurrence of this form from that root in either Aramaic or Hebrew has been pointed out. Dr. Colwell quotes Augustine as saying that a Jew "told him it was a word without meaning, an interjection expressing indignation."^1
Jennings pg. 211
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/Jennings/page.php?p=211
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
https://cal.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=rq+N%20&cits=all
rq, rqˀ (rāq, rāqā) n.m. vile person
vile person Gal, CPA, Syr. BR 278:9(1) : דהוה אמ׳ להון רקייה . P Mt5:22 : ܘܟܼܽܠ ܕܿܢܼܐܡܲܪ ܠܲܐܚܘܼܗ̱ܝ ܪܲܩܲܐ whoever says to his brother: vile one!.
Greek ῥακά.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1488[743]; DJPA: 529b; Payne-Smith: ~3972; J. Payne-Smith: 549; DCPA[Schulthess]: 407[197];
======================================
"Goodspeed is trying to make sense of the Greek texts that have ραχα instead of ρακα"
Do you agree with Goodspeed that "No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported"?
Magiera's concordance has 'r-u-q-a' i.e. spit at Jn 9,6.
She lists 'r-q' i.e. spit for
Mt 26,67
27,30
Mk 7,33
8,23
10,34
14,65
15,19
Lk 18,32
Jn 9,6
===============================================
“It probably meant something like ‘vile person’, but I doubt we can recover the exact sense as used by Jesus in his day”
What do you think the Aramaic r-q and r-u-q-h in John 9:6 mean?
John 9:6 (based on Younan)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
And when he said these things
he r-q [spat] upon the ground
and mixed clay with r-u-q-h [his spit]
and he rubbed it upon the eyes of that blind (man).
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
http://cal.huc.edu/getlex.php?coord=620430906&word=3
rqq vb. a/u to spit
possibly rather still the etymological rwq in earlier texts
G View a KWIC
to spit Com. TAD C1.1(Ahiqar) .133 : ועל אחר֗[ן י]ה֗נשגון כדבתה ויר{ו}קן באנפוהי but in the end they shall find out his lies and spit in his face. TgJ 1Sam17:43tos : דלא אירוק בך ותטבע ברוקי lest I spit on you and you drown in my spit. P Lv15:8 : ܐܢ ܢܪܘܩ ܗܿܘ ܡܿܢ ܕܕܐܿܒ ܥܠ ܡܿܢ ܕܕܟܐ if someone with an impure emission spits on someone who is clean. P Dt25:9 : ܬܪܘܩ ܒܐ̈ܦܘܗܝ she should spit in his face. BT Šab 145b(17) : ר׳ יוחנן {{ד}}ייק מכותחא דבבלאי PN used to spit at the mention of [lit. from] the k.-dish of the Babylonians. GS 7:19 : mˁ^a^ka ḏraq ruqa mn pumẖ uˁtkamar bilẖ mn riš is there anyone that has spat out spittle from his mouth and gone back and swallowed it anew?. TgEsth2 3:8(3) : וכד חזיין לנא רקקין בארעא when they see us they spit on the ground.
D View a KWIC
to spit much CPA.
C View a KWIC
to spit Syr. JSB2 814:16 : ܬܗܦܘܟ ܬܲܪܸܩ spit it back out.
Gt View a KWIC
1 to be spat on Syr. ES1 282:19 .
2 impers. Syr. Gr 105:20 : ܐܢܕܝܢ ܡܬܪܩܩ ܠܢ ܒܐܦ̈ܝܢ if we are spat on upon our faces.
palpel View a KWIC
to spit CPA.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1490[742]; DJPA: 530a; DJBA: 1094b; Jastrow: 1498; Drower/Macuch: 437b, 424a, 431b; Payne-Smith: 3972; J. Payne-Smith: 549; Levy Ch-W: 2:436; Tal Sam: 853; DCPA[Schulthess]: 407[197]; DJA: 80a;
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
http://cal.huc.edu/getlex.php?coord=620430906&word=9
rwq, rwqˀ (roq, ruqqā) n.m. spit
1 spittle JLAtg, Gal, CPA, Syr, JBAmb, JBA, JBAg, Man, LJLA. TgJ Is50:6 : אַפַי לָא טַמַרִית מֵאִתכְנָעוּ וְרוֹק [=MT פָּנַי לֹא הִסְתַּרְתִּי מִכְּלִמּוֹת וָרֹק]. PalLaws3(1) 101:4 : והיא רקקא קודמוי רוק רב she spits much spittle before him. P Jn9:6 : ܘܲܓܼܒܼܲܠ ܛܼܝܢܵܐ ܡܸܢ ܪܘܼܩܸܗ . JS_Elisha 116:113 : ܒܡܸܠܬܵܐ ܘܪܲܘܩܵܐ ܘܲܒܝܲܡܝܼܢܸܗ ܐܲܣܝܼ ܟܼܐܒܸ̈ܐ He healed pains with a word, spittle, and His right hand. JBABowl 74.1:2 : דנ^י^בש לישניה בפומיה ויתמסי רוקיה בגרגרתי so his tongue dries up in his mouth and his spittle rot in his throat. BT Yev 101b(3) : צריכי דייני למיחזי רוקא כי נפיק מפומא דיבמה the judges must see the spittle as it leaves the mouth of the yevamah. ShPDm 77 : rabun rmabkun ruqa ḏmirtun their leader cast upon you their venomous spittle. PJ Deut25:9 : ומן בתר כדון תירוק קדמוי רוקא נפישא and after that she should spit a lot of spittle in front of him.
2 spitting JLAtg, Syr. TgJ Is50:6 : אַפַי לָא טַמַרִית מֵאִתכְנָעֻו וְרוֹק I did not hide my face from humiliation and spitting.
3 name of a demon JBA. BT San 101a(38) : רוקא דחמת קא חזינא I see the demon, PN, here.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1452[743]; DJPA: 520a; DJBA: 1067a; Jastrow: 1463; Drower/Macuch: 431b; Payne-Smith: ~3972; J. Payne-Smith: 536; Levy Ch-W: 2:435; DCPA[Schulthess]: 395[197]; DJA: 79b;
===============================================
“don’t think about them at all”
Are you aware of any flaws in Torrey’s remarks about the date of Revelation’s composition?
(‘yes: most scholars strenuously disagree’?
‘no: I’m unfamiliar with those remarks of his’?)
===============================================
“Which mss"
_The New Testament in Hebrew: Evidence and Issues_ (2020), 179pp., on 49, 50
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Heb...716048923/
13th Oxford MS Matthew 1:16 "Joseph _father_ of Mary." ....
14th New York MS JTS [Jewish Theological Seminary] "Joseph _father_ of Mary."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q...-mary#8037
Luke gives Joseph's genealogy, while Matthew gives Mary's
This view is much less common than the former, but it has been observed throughout Christian history. Clement of Alexandria expressed this early view, writing,
"And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of the Lord."9
Victorinus of Pettau also believed this, declaring,
"Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh."10
There is no support for this in the extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew, but proponents of this view believe the text has been corrupted and that Matthew originally referred to two Josephs: one being the husband of Mary and the other her father (this is also used to explain the discrepancy with the Lukan account and why the number differs on 14 vs. 13 generations)....
9 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 21.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi...%80%93p125
Also notable is that Irenaeus refutes this view in Adversus haereses, 3.21.9.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix...2%80%93p32
10 Victorinus of Pettau, Apocalypsin, 4.7–10.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi...80%93p11.4
11 Harold A. Blair, "Matthew 1:16 and the Matthaean Genealogy", Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), 149–154.
=========================================
"At the moment I have no interest in reading Torrey’s remarks on the dating of the book of Revelation. I don’t like the book of Revelation"
The Greek Revelation was translated from Aramaic. If anyone wishes to read some details about the atrocious Greek grammar in the Greek translation, see below.
Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
In regard to the strange Greek constructions Norden, quoted above, truly says that in every case of a barbarism the correct usage appears elsewhere in the book. There is no lack of knowledge of Greek idiom. As for the Greek particles, the manner of their use or absence is like what we see throughout the Greek Bible. Here also there is no proof of ignorance. Charles' explanation is decidedly less plausible than the others.
There is excellent reason, however, for one conclusion he reaches―expressed in similar words by many before him―namely, that “the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely unique.” The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature. It is only in the Greek that they are apparent, for it is the form, not the sense, that is affected.
A few of the more striking solecisms are exhibited here in English translation, so that any reader may see their nature.
1:4. “Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come” (all nom. case).
1:15. “His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gend., dative case) as in a furnace purified (fem. gend., sing. no., gen. case)”
11:3. “My witnesses (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth.”
14:14. “I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a son-of-man (accus.), having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown.”
14:19. “He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem.), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God.”
17:4. “A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things (accus.).”
19:20. “The lake of blazing fire (“fire,” neut.; “blazing,” fem.).
20:2. “And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.), who is the Devil and Satan and bound him.”
21:9. “Seven angels, holding the seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues.”
22:5. “They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.).”
This apparent linguistic anarchy has no explanation on the Greek side. It is hardly surprising that to some readers it should have seemed open defiance of grammar, to others a symptom of mental aberration. Nevertheless there is method to it all. The more grotesque these barbarisms, the more certain it is that they are not due to lack of acquaintance with Greek. Each of the rules broken in the passages here cited is faithfully observed in many other places and shown to be perfectly familiar.
....
In fact, underlying all of the amazing solecisms is seen the wording of the Semitic original. The grammatical monstrosities, recognized in their true nature, testify to the execution of a definite purpose carried through with remarkable consistency. When they are examined, they are found to show grammatical appreciation rather than the lack of it. But it is Aramaic grammar!
(Nevertheless, the ideal of a thoroughly accurate translation was incapable of realization, as we know to our sorrow. No Greek translator of an unpointed Semitic text of the extent of this apocalypse could possibly come through without his considerable sheath of mistranslations. We have no knowledge of any such faultless―or even nearly faultless―achievement.*)
What the Greek translator of Revelation does, in the effort to be exactly faithful, is merely an exaggeration of what is regularly and constantly done in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The translators rendered as they did because of the conception of their task. They were handing down works of high importance, and would assume no unnecessary responsibility. What they―each and all―aimed at was to produce a text which could be understood by the Greek reader and at the same should mirror faithfully every word and phrase of the sacred original. This, the original, was the all-important thing, and the fact was always kept in view. The style of the translation was of no consequence; it was not Greek, nor ever intended to be.
*See _Our Translated Gospels_ [by Torrey], chapter 1; _The Four Gospels_ [by Torrey], pages 265-74.
============================================
"Aramaic was spoken in certain areas but it was not the language of the Jews"
What language is "Akeldama"?
Acts 1:19 (NIV)
Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
============================================
“any current critical scholars who argue for Peshitta primacy?”
Does Glenn David Bauscher count as a ‘current critical scholar’?
According to the Greek mss. of the NT, Jesus is headed to hellfire, had feet that were like pillars, and had breasts.
A mistranslation at Greek Rev 1:13 says Jesus has female breasts.
Rev 1:13 (Common English Bible)
“In the middle of the lampstands I saw someone who looked like the Human One. He wore a robe that stretched down to his feet, and he had a gold sash around his chest.[aj]”
The Greek word used here is mastos and is used exclusively for a woman’s breasts.
Rather than using στῆθος/ stethos/ chest, the Greek mss. for Revelation 1:13 speak of Jesus having μαστός/ mastos/ breasts.
Do you have an explanation of the Greek Revelation’s grammatical monstrosities?
=================================================
Does Janet Magiera count as a ‘current critical scholar’?
How about Metzger?
The Greek translation of the original Aramaic has added glosses that explicitly give translations of Aramaic.
I count 10 glosses in Greek mss. of the gospels (plus 1 gloss in Acts).
Both the Aramaic Peshitta and the Arabic Diatesseron lack those glosses.
Do you think those glosses:
were in the original writing of the Greek, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?
arose during the translation of the Aramaic gospels & Acts into Greek?
Do you think Tatian, when assembling his Diatesseron, used gospels that:
had glosses, and then he deleted the glosses before completing his Diatesseron project?
lacked glosses?
Matthew 27:46 (NIV)
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
Mark 5:41 (NASB)
Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, "Talitha kum!" (which translated means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").
Mark 7:11 (Anderson NT)
https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/7-11.htm
But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, What ever of mine might benefit you, is Corban, (which means, a gift,)
Mark 7:34 (NIV)
He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means "Be opened!").
Mark 10:46 (NIV)
Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means "son of Timaeus"), was sitting by the roadside begging.
John 1:38 (Berean Literal)
Then Jesus having turned and having beheld them following, says to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to Him, "Rabbi" (which being translated is to say Teacher), "where are You staying?"
John 1:41 (Berean Literal)
He first finds the own brother Simon and says to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Christ).
John 1:42 (NIV)
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).
John 4:25 (NIV)
The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
John 9:7 (NASB)
and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
Acts 9:36 (Berean Study)
In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which is translated as Dorcas), who was always occupied with works of kindness and charity.
==================================================
"her academic history? Where did she study? What degrees does she have? Peer-reviewed publications?"
All I found was this:
https://www.lightofword.org/index.php
Janet Magiera is an ordained minister and the founder of Light of the Word Ministry A language student since childhood, Jan fell in love with Aramaic in 1979 while studying under a student of Dr. George Lamsa. She started learning how to understand Aramaic and has not stopped for 40 years. In 2004, Jan became frustrated by the lack of credible and accessible Aramaic translations of the Bible. Aside from Lamsa, there were only a few old English translations from the 1850's. Who wants to teach the Bible using the oldest continuously written language of the Middle East translated into the oldest English ever known? She felt it was past time that an accurate and modern translation be written. At that moment, she began to work on the translation herself, something well-researched, easy to understand, and available to everyone. In 2006, the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Library was born and now includes an interlinear, lexicon, concordance, Messianic version, and parallel translations. Jan has also authored topical books on Biblical subjects, including giving, ministries, the armor of God, Hebrew and Aramaic word pictures, and end-times events.
"was not a Peshitta primacist"
Agreed. Is Metzger a "current critical scholar"?
How about Wallace?
"those glosses: were in the original writing of the Greek, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?"
"That sounds reasonable"
Suppose one document is had in 2 different languages.
The version of the document in language X contains glosses.
The version of the document in language Z lacks those glosses.
Does the presence of glosses, and does the absence of glosses, indicate anything about the original language of composition?
Does the presence of untranslated transliterations in a document suggest that that document:
is in the original language of composition?
is a translation?
"the glosses wouldn’t be needed in Syriac"
Were the explanations in the verses below needed?
Matthew 1:23 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-23.htm
"Behold the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bear a son, and they shall call his Name
Emmanuail, which is translated, 'Our God is with us'".
Mark 15:34 (Bauscher)
biblehub.com/hpbt/mark/15.htm
And in the ninth hour Yeshua cried out in a loud voice, and he said:
“Eil, Eil, lemana Shabaqthani”, which is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Mat 27:33 (Magiera)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new...ons-search
And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is interpreted, "The Skull."
Mar 15:22 (Magiera)
And they brought him to Golgotha, the place that is interpreted, The Skull.
Joh 19:17 (Magiera)
bearing his cross, to a place that was called 'The Skull,' but in Hebrew is called Golgotha,
Joh 20:16 (Magiera)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new...ons-search
Jesus said to her, "Mary." And she turned around and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbuli," which means Teacher.
Hebrews 7 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/hebrews/7.htm
1 This Melchizedek is The King of Shalim, Priest of The Most High God, and he met Abraham when he returned from the massacre of Kings and blessed him.
2 And Abraham distributed to him a tenth of everything that he had with him; but his name is interpreted, “King of Righteousness”
and again “King of Shalim”,
which is, “King of Peace”,
//////////////////////////////////
using google translate on Dutch from http://dukhrana.com
John 20:16 - Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabbuli!” that is, “My Master.”
in Hebrew!] - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek NA28. The text is missing from the reading of the Greek MHT and TR.
Rabbuli!] - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'Rabboeni', which is not a Greek term of address, by the way, but a transcription in Greek of the Aramaic term of address, whereby we should know that in Aramaic 'Rabbuli' and 'Rabboeni mean the same. The fact that we read in this verse "in Hebrew" (‹i.e. in the Aramaic Peshitta and in the Greek NA28, but not in the Greek MHT and TR›), has to do with the fact that Aramaic was written in Hebrew letters.
Matthew 27:33 - (When) they came to the place called 'Gagulta', meaning 'The Skull',
Gagulta - this is the Hebrew name according to Jh. 19:17 after the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta, but essentially that name is Aramaic so that in this verse we find two Aramaic words for 'skull', namely, the word used here ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ (‹qarqafta›) translated as 'Skull' and the word ܓ݁ܳܓ݂ܽܘܠܬ݁ܳܐ (‹Gagulta›).
In the Hebrew OT there are two Hebrew words for 'skull'. One of them is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (‹gulgolet - H1538›). See also the note to Jh. 19:17. The names 'Golgotha' and 'Gagulta' differ in sound. We suspect that the names "Golgotha" and "Gagulta" represent two varieties of Aramaic, possibly the Aramaic of Jerusalem and that of Galilee.
The Skull - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'The Place of the Skull'.
John 19:17 - He carried his cross to the place called 'The Skull', but in Hebrew it is called 'Gagulta'.
He carried his cross - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek MHT and TR. The reading of the Greek NA28 reads: 'He Himself bore his cross'.
The Skull - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'The Place of the Skull'.
Hebrew - According to Jastrow's dictionary of Aramaic, the word "Hebrew" in Aramaic can also mean "Aramaic", the language of the Peshitta. Aramaic was and is written by the Jews in Hebrew letters.
Gagulta - this is the Hebrew name according to Jh. 19:17 after the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta, but essentially that name is Aramaic so that we find in this verse two Aramaic words for 'skull', namely the word used here ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ (‹qarqaftā›) translated as 'Skull' and the word ܓ݁ܳܓ݂ܽܘܠܬ݁ܳܐ (‹Gāgūlṫā›).
In the Hebrew OT there are two Hebrew words for 'skull'. One of them is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (‹gūlgolēt - H1538›). .... The names 'Golgotha' and 'Gagulta' differ in sound. We suspect that the names "Golgotha" and "Gagulta" represent two varieties of Aramaic, possibly the Aramaic of Jerusalem and that of Galilee.
======================================================
Are you aware of any mistakes in the Peshitta?
[Paul Younan]"point me to a mistake in the Aramaic Peshitta which arose from a grammatical error while translating from the Greek. In your model, there should be plenty that exist. ....point me to one error in the Peshitta which can only be explained by the Aramaic translator making a grammatical mistake that could have only happened if he had a Greek original in front of him."
==========================================
Of these 4 renditions of John 1:42, which originated:
first?
second?
third?
a) the Aramaic behind:
John 1:42 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/john/1-42.htm
And he brought him to Yeshua
and Yeshua gazed at him and he said:
“You are Shimeon, son of Yona;
you shall be called Kaypha.”
b) the Greek behind:
John 1:42 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/john/1-42.htm
And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said,
"You are Simon son of John.
You will be called Cephas"
(which, when translated, is Peter).
c) the Aramaic behind:
_The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 2, Luke and John) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), with pages numbered 384-850, by E. Jan Wilson, S = Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus, on 682
https://www.amazon.com/Old-Syriac-Gospel...931956189/
S1.42 And he led him and came to our Lord.
Our Lord looked at him and said to him,
You are Simon bar Jonah.
You will be called Cepha,
which translated into Greek is Peter.
d) the Hebrew behind:
_The Hebrew Gospel of John_ version 1.1 (April 2021), 84pp., on 6
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Gospel-Joh...09X512FZH/
And he brought him unto Yeshua.
And Yeshua looked at him, saying,
"You are Shimon the son of [Yonah],^3
you will [be] called Keipha"
(meaning rock).
3: Hebrew name for 'Jonah.'
=========================================
"The attempt to establish an Aramaic underpinning to the Greek NT is really more apologetics than textual criticism"
How would you characterize an "attempt to establish" a Greek "underpinning to the" NT?
"An effort to establish a connection to the historical Jesus that is otherwise debatable"
How so? The Greek translation is a reasonable translation.
=========================================
“Metzger (deceased 2007)”
So Metzger isn’t a “current critical scholar.”
“know of any current critical scholars who argue for Peshitta primacy?”
No.
“No, not necessarily.”
Does the field of textual criticism have any dictums about glosses?
“No and No, not necessarily”
Does the field of textual criticism have any dictums about untranslated transliterations?
"Whose text are you translating from Dutch?"
http://dukhrana.com
Peshitta Tool
check the 2 boxes for:
Evangelische Bijbel Vertaling (EBV) Dutch Peshitta translation
with options: include footnotes