Greek-isms???????

[gbausc]

Shlama & Shalom,

If 2 Peter was translated from Greek, why does it show as many examples of Aramaic primacy as 1 Peter? 2 Peter has the following example in verse 1:1 of Aramaic primacy; others will follow this one:

(The Messiah) axysm(of Yeshua) ewsyd(& an apostle) axylsw(servant) adbe(Petros) owrjp(Shimeon) Nwems1:1
(in honor *) arqyab(equally *) tyws(who for the faith) atwnmyhld(to those) Nylyal
(of our Lord *) Nrmd(by the righteousness) atwqydzb(were worthy *) wywtsa(with us) Nme
(The Messiah) axysm(Yeshua) ewsy(& our Savior) Nqwrpw

1.Shimeon Petraus, a Servant and an Apostle of Yeshua The Messiah to those who, equal in honor** with us, were worthy* for the faith by the righteousness of Our Lord* and Our Savior Yeshua The Messiah.

* * All Greek mss. have isotimov ??? (isotimos) ???equally precious??? in place of these two Aramaic words (in Dead Sea Scroll Pesher Habbakuk font)-)rqy)b & tyw$ "Equally, together + in honor"; isotimov - "isotimos" is a compound word iso ??? ???equal??? + timov ??????precious???. Interestingly , the Aramaic words )rqy)b & tyw$ can rarely mean ??? in worth??? & ???equally???. The word tyw$ is adverbial, describing the Gentile believers' state of being,not an adjective describing faith.

Even The AD 616 Harklean revision agrees with the Critical Aramaic text edition and the Pococke edition reading of (in honor) arqyab(equally *) tyws, indicating here as in many other places that the Harklean disagrees with the Greek and agrees with The Peshitta and Crawford ms. against the Greek, and is probably not a fresh translation of Greek, but a revision of The Peshitta, using the Greek to revise it in places.

* All the Greek mss. have lacousin lacousin ??????they obtained by lot??? ; The Aramaic wywt$) ??????were worthy??? is very similar to another verb wyt$) which means ???they imbibed, they received???. I posit that the word wywt$) ??????were worthy??? was read as wyt$) -???they imbibed, they received??? and translated lacousin ??????they obtained by lot???.The Greek for ???they were worthy??? or ???they were esteemed worthy??? is axioi jsan axioi hsan or axiwqjsontai -"axiwythaysontai" or kataxiwqjsontai -kataxiwthayhsontai . Which of these looks like lacousin ??????they obtained by lot??? ? So is it unlikely the Aramaic reading wywt$) ??????were worthy???came from Greek reading , lacousin ??????they obtained by lot???. It looks far more likely that the Greek came from the Aramaic text.

(By the way: Does God cast lots ?)

Here are the two readings in Aramaic:
wywt$) ??????They were worthy??? (Gwynn???s Edition)
wyt$) ??????They received??? (Hypothetical base for Greek reading)

The ending of the verse has:
* Greek has tou qeou jmwn -???of our God???, as does The Harklean.
Here are both readings in Greek, for comparison:

* Greek has qeou jmwn -???of our God???,
* Greek has kuriou jmwn -???of our Lord???,

Here are both in Aramaic:

}rmd -???of our Lord???
}hl)-???of our God???
A lot to chew on, I know. But if the Aramaic came from Greek, why are there not such demonstrable examples of Aramaic readings being explainable as a misreading of a Greek word, by mistaking a Greek letter or two? I have yet to find an example such as the above where two Greek readings are more similar than the same readings in Aramaic; usually they are not even close, whereas they look quite similar in Aramaic.


Special thanks to Paul for making all the fonts used above available on Peshitta.org. He even has 2 Dead Sea Scroll fonts and The Online Bible Hebrew font, all of which I used in my interlinear and plain English translations to illustrate how a Greek translated and sometimes misread an Aramaic word in the first century. The Dead Sea Scroll scripts were not apparently used after the first century or early 2nd century, and even then, only in Israel, as far as we know.

How many fonts are available now on this site, Paul?

Blessings,

Dave