Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ARAMAIC CLARIFICATION STATEMENTS IN NT
#12
Shlama akhi,


your logic is sound to me, so keep up the good work! in the realm of textual criticism of Biblical texts, a general rule is that the harder readings is normally considered the genuine reading. expanded readings, especially what are known as "expansions of piety," are considered later additions for clarification or to remove all doubt about a particular aspect. in this case, i think the Peshitta pretty much displays an older, untainted text than the Greek manuscripts that have all these "translations." it has been shown on this site and elsewhere that in such instances where the "translations" are present in the Peshitta, that a VERY good reason is held for them that could be accounted for as being part of the original text, and not a later addition, as would have been necessary for the Greek texts.

i don't know of any Peshitta texts with all the "translations" contained in them. of interest would be to see how the Old Syriac chooses to render these particular passages from the Gospels, as they have been shown to side with the Greek time after time and butcher the Aramaic.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: ARAMAIC CLARIFICATION STATEMENTS IN NT - by Burning one - 08-22-2011, 03:10 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)