Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
About Luke 16:19-31 II century interpolation
#31
Thx Dawid!
Reply
#32
Dawid Wrote:
Innoire Wrote:Thx. And Peshitta is oldest?

Many, including myself, would contend that the Peshitta is a translation. .

Hi dawid, Im interested in what it is that might make you contend it is a translation?

thanks
Reply
#33
I am also interested.
Reply
#34
The dialect of the Peshitta is all wrong, the proofs for primacy don't hold up, it's altogether too standardized, etc. A lot of things have added up in the last six months or so.
Reply
#35
You are very honest Dawid. The Most High, our God and Creator Father bless you with wishdom and peace, through His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus!
Reply
#36
Dawid Wrote:The dialect of the Peshitta is all wrong,


Can you exaplain what you mean. If the peshitta is in a slightly different eastern dialect at some points, does that mean we call it a translation?
I would have thought a translation is from one language to another.

Quote: the proofs for primacy don't hold up,

Do you mean all the proofs?
Can you gine an example?

Quote:it's altogether too standardized, etc.

Can you exaplin on what basis this means it is necessarily a translation?

thnaks. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#37
judge Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:The dialect of the Peshitta is all wrong,


Can you exaplain what you mean. If the peshitta is in a slightly different eastern dialect at some points, does that mean we call it a translation?
I would have thought a translation is from one language to another.
If this were genuinely of first century Palestinian origin, we would expect it to be in a variation of Judean Aramaic. There were small differences between the Galilean and Judean dialects, but the Peshitta is in Syriac, another dialect entirely. So we cannot rely on the Peshitta as being any kind of original.

judge Wrote:
Quote: the proofs for primacy don't hold up,

Do you mean all the proofs?
Can you gine an example?
I do not claim that none of the arguments for Peshitta primacy hold up. that wouldn't be intellectually honest. I'm simply saying that many of the arguments that I formerly relied on turned out to be less reliable than I had thought.
For instance, some have pointed out that the Greek Revelation says "I am the Alpha and the O" not actually "I am the Alpha and the Omega." The argument is that this is derived from the appearance of the Estrangela script for "taw." This argument fails to recognize that omicron and omega were both known simply as "o" until the third century.

judge Wrote:
Quote:it's altogether too standardized, etc.

Can you exaplin on what basis this means it is necessarily a translation?

thnaks. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
It does not *necessarily* mean that the Peshitta is a translation, but it does suggest that it is more heavily redacted, and so further removed from the source material.
Reply
#38
Dawid Wrote:
judge Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:The dialect of the Peshitta is all wrong,


Can you exaplain what you mean. If the peshitta is in a slightly different eastern dialect at some points, does that mean we call it a translation?
I would have thought a translation is from one language to another.
If this were genuinely of first century Palestinian origin, we would expect it to be in a variation of Judean Aramaic. There were small differences between the Galilean and Judean dialects, but the Peshitta is in Syriac, another dialect entirely. So we cannot rely on the Peshitta as being any kind of original.

Parts of the peshitta, at least, might not be from Palestine. Being from palestine is also,not necessarily a part of a peshitta primacy approach. Luke probably was not, others may have been, but perhaps they had left there many years before they wrote?
But even if it is to be of palestinian origin, it seems to be splitting hairs.
If an englishman wrote in the english version of the english language would it be that much different to an American version?

Peshitta primacists claim that it has come down "without change or revision". Merely having some dialectical adjustments seems to satisfy that criterion. Wouldn't you say?


Quote:I do not claim that none of the arguments for Peshitta primacy hold up. that wouldn't be intellectually honest. I'm simply saying that many of the arguments that I formerly relied on turned out to be less reliable than I had thought.
For instance, some have pointed out that the Greek Revelation says "I am the Alpha and the O" not actually "I am the Alpha and the Omega." The argument is that this is derived from the appearance of the Estrangela script for "taw." This argument fails to recognize that omicron and omega were both known simply as "o" until the third century.

Revelation is not part of the peshitta.

Quote:It does not *necessarily* mean that the Peshitta is a translation, but it does suggest that it is more heavily redacted, and so further removed from the source material.

If homogenity is the only evidence of redaction, then I dont think it is enough. The homogenity may just point to the peshitta being the original (albeit with slight dialectical adjustments).
The evidence that the OT was redacted are fairly convincing but they dont rely on homgenity.
Reply
#39
"At the first each book had its single original text, which it is now the object of criticism to recover, but in the first two centuries this original Greek text disappeared under a mass of variants, created by errors, by conscious alterations, and by attempts to remedy the uncertainties thus created."

F.C. Kenyon, "The Text of the Greek Bible", pages 241-242
Reply
#40
Why would all the single original text need to be Greek? Intuitively, it seems probable that the original text was a composite of two or three languages. Those likely being Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, maybe some Latin, etc. Maybe "Q" was Aramaic, Matthew and a few others Hebrew or Aramaic, Paul's letters Greek. Which is which would depend some upon who the author was and who the target audience was. Who knows for sure, I am just speculating.

Could it be that the Greeks were the first to assemble all 27 into one language, that of Greek. And a few centuries later the same occurred with the Peshitta, for the 22, in Syriac. Maybe some of the original texts lost through time to the Greeks were still available to the writers of the Peshitta in the 5th century. Not that they were the original, but a very direct first or second generation copy of them.

Again, all this is pure speculation on my part, but it seems intuitively probable to me.
Reply
#41
Quote:John 19:20 And many of the Jews read this label; because the place where Jesus was crucified, was near to Jerusalem; and it was written in Hebrew and Greek and Latin.
Not that this has any relevancy to the NT, but not even the sign was written in a single language.
Reply
#42
Jerry Wrote:Why would all the single original text need to be Greek? Intuitively, it seems probable that the original text was a composite of two or three languages. Those likely being Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, maybe some Latin, etc. Maybe "Q" was Aramaic, Matthew and a few others Hebrew or Aramaic, Paul's letters Greek. Which is which would depend some upon who the author was and who the target audience was. Who knows for sure, I am just speculating.

Could it be that the Greeks were the first to assemble all 27 into one language, that of Greek. And a few centuries later the same occurred with the Peshitta, for the 22, in Syriac. Maybe some of the original texts lost through time to the Greeks were still available to the writers of the Peshitta in the 5th century. Not that they were the original, but a very direct first or second generation copy of them.

Again, all this is pure speculation on my part, but it seems intuitively probable to me.


Shlama,

i also believe that the NT books were translated into other tongues at a very early date, and by multiple sources, which only explains the majority of the variant readings to be found.

i don't know how much study you've done in Paul's letters, but i've done quite a bit of study there in the past year, and in the Peshitta, they are replete with wordplays that are nonexistent in the Greek. they also contain their own respective variant resolutions, idioms, etc., all which strongly point to the Peshitta text as being source-text for the Greek readings.

out of all the NT books, Paul's letters are the ones that are usually assumed to have been originally in Greek, and yet the evidence from the text seems to actually show otherwise...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#43
Jerry Wrote:
Quote:John 19:20 And many of the Jews read this label; because the place where Jesus was crucified, was near to Jerusalem; and it was written in Hebrew and Greek and Latin.
Not that this has any relevancy to the NT, but not even the sign was written in a single language.


Shlama akhi,


it seems i recall somewhere that government or legal public citations were to be presented in the major languages of the region, so all would understand.

although i honestly do not know if this was actually the case -- just going off a memory from somewhere in this noodle of mine. i don't know if there really is verifiable evidence of this taking place, so i could be flat wrong here. anyhow, something to try to check and verify...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#44
Shlama,

In my opinion The New Testament books was written in two language:

1.Greek (Koine):

Mark, Luke, John, Paul's letters (excepting "Hebrews"), Peter's letters, and Revelation

2.Hebrew (Neo-Hebrew: a kind of Hebrew+Aramaic mixture)

Matthew, Hebrews, Jude, Jacob
Reply
#45
Innoire Wrote:Shlama,

In my opinion The New Testament books was written in two language:

1.Greek (Koine):

Mark, Luke, John, Paul's letters (excepting "Hebrews"), Peter's letters, and Revelation

2.Hebrew (Neo-Hebrew: a kind of Hebrew+Aramaic mixture)

Matthew, Hebrews, Jude, Jacob
You are paying far too much attention to history and not enough to linguistics. Some of the books you have assigned to Greek (such as Revelation, John, and Mark) have higher concentrations of semiticisms than some of the ones you assign to Hebrew (Hebrews and Matthew, especially).

Another thing, poetry and idiom are not necessarily indicative of an original. Nehemiah Gordon has tried to defend the originality of the Shem Tov on the same grounds, but his case will not hold water. As Howard pointed out in his book about said text, this could just as easily be explained by redaction or careful translation. A person translating from Greek into Hebrew or Aramaic would be able to insert puns, and the idioms would already be there, since Koine was heavily influenced by semitic languages, and since the author, no matter what language he wrote in, was probably most familiar with Aramaic.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)