10-02-2011, 01:57 PM
Shlama,
here's a question posed by an individual at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.biblescholarsforums.com">http://www.biblescholarsforums.com</a><!-- m --> with a "supposed" error in both the Aramaic and the Greek manuscripts, and what i shared there with a very plausible Peshitta-Primacy solution. i suppose this could go under the VARIANTS topic as well, but it works well under mistranslation, too, so our gracious moderators can move it if deemed that it needs to be there <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> :
from the Greek:
Mark 6:8 (New International Version, ?2010)
These were his instructions: ?Take nothing for the journey except a staff?no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.
vs.
Matthew 10:10 (New International Version, ?2010)
no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep.
.....
from the Aramaic:
Matthew 10:10
nor a wallet for the journey: neither two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff. For the laborer is worthy of his food. (Murdock)
vs.
Mark 6:8
And he commanded them to take nothing for the journey, except a staff only; neither a wallet, nor bread, nor brass in their purses; (Murdock)
okay, so *apparently* we have a problem. both the Aramaic and Greek appear to be reading the same thing. this incident recorded is the same incident, so one tells us no staff could be taken, and the other says to take only a staff.
here's my proposed solution:
taking the reading from Mark 6, both Aramaic and Greek texts tell us basically that "a staff only" could be taken. this is extremely explicit in detail, and should not be taken lightly. the reading here, in both Aramaic and Greek, is the same, and so should be of more weight than the other instance, due to the "limiting" detail found here. if a SINGLE staff could be taken, then obviously MORE staffs could not. simple logic, yet worth pointing out.
with that, look at Matthew 10, which says "a staff" in some translations. that reading is determined by *which* manuscript the Greek translator chose to use when making the English translation, for there are those which read RABDOUS "staffs," in the PLURAL, instead of RABDON, "staff," in the singular.
examples:
RABDOUS "staffs" - the majority of Byzantine texts, Sigma 022, as well as some others, and some early Latin.
RABDON "staff" - some minority Byzantine texts, like Lectionary 2211, Jerome's Vulgate, etc.
Greek scholars will openly admit the reason for the variant is speculative. one suggested that the letters faded at the end of the word, so a scribe reconstructed as he saw fit and created a variant. so that is on the Greek side of things.
but
let's take a look at the Peshitta's words for "staffs" and "staff" --
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0=b4[/font] "staffs" SHAWTE'
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0=b4[/font] "staff" SHAWTA
if you will notice, the Aramaic term for the singular and the plural of "staff" is spelled EXACTLY the same. the only difference is pronunciation alone. so what is more likely - you be the judge:
1. the Greek text was unreadable, so a scribe reconstructed the term and got it WRONG, even in light of the other parallel passages.
2. a translator read the Aramaic word, which is spelled exactly the same in singular or plural, and in translating into Greek ended up choosing the wrong term, thus explaining the singular and plural Greek variants still extant today.
so with the Peshitta, it is all in how the word is pronounced. there IS NO ISSUE via the Aramaic, unless you choose to read it in the singular - but remember, the vowelized text was not original, but added later. but if you go with the Greek, then you've got to decide which manuscript preserves the inspired words.
BOTH the Aramaic and the Greek texts read "staff" in Mark 6, which would make the plural reading of Matthew 10, etc., the obvious choice, as one staff would be okay, but don't stock up on them (ie, for defense, perhaps, as the road was a dangerous place). only the Peshitta explains why there are differing readings in the Greek.
any thoughts?
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
here's a question posed by an individual at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.biblescholarsforums.com">http://www.biblescholarsforums.com</a><!-- m --> with a "supposed" error in both the Aramaic and the Greek manuscripts, and what i shared there with a very plausible Peshitta-Primacy solution. i suppose this could go under the VARIANTS topic as well, but it works well under mistranslation, too, so our gracious moderators can move it if deemed that it needs to be there <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> :from the Greek:
Mark 6:8 (New International Version, ?2010)
These were his instructions: ?Take nothing for the journey except a staff?no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.
vs.
Matthew 10:10 (New International Version, ?2010)
no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep.
.....
from the Aramaic:
Matthew 10:10
nor a wallet for the journey: neither two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff. For the laborer is worthy of his food. (Murdock)
vs.
Mark 6:8
And he commanded them to take nothing for the journey, except a staff only; neither a wallet, nor bread, nor brass in their purses; (Murdock)
okay, so *apparently* we have a problem. both the Aramaic and Greek appear to be reading the same thing. this incident recorded is the same incident, so one tells us no staff could be taken, and the other says to take only a staff.
here's my proposed solution:
taking the reading from Mark 6, both Aramaic and Greek texts tell us basically that "a staff only" could be taken. this is extremely explicit in detail, and should not be taken lightly. the reading here, in both Aramaic and Greek, is the same, and so should be of more weight than the other instance, due to the "limiting" detail found here. if a SINGLE staff could be taken, then obviously MORE staffs could not. simple logic, yet worth pointing out.
with that, look at Matthew 10, which says "a staff" in some translations. that reading is determined by *which* manuscript the Greek translator chose to use when making the English translation, for there are those which read RABDOUS "staffs," in the PLURAL, instead of RABDON, "staff," in the singular.
examples:
RABDOUS "staffs" - the majority of Byzantine texts, Sigma 022, as well as some others, and some early Latin.
RABDON "staff" - some minority Byzantine texts, like Lectionary 2211, Jerome's Vulgate, etc.
Greek scholars will openly admit the reason for the variant is speculative. one suggested that the letters faded at the end of the word, so a scribe reconstructed as he saw fit and created a variant. so that is on the Greek side of things.
but
let's take a look at the Peshitta's words for "staffs" and "staff" --
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0=b4[/font] "staffs" SHAWTE'
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0=b4[/font] "staff" SHAWTA
if you will notice, the Aramaic term for the singular and the plural of "staff" is spelled EXACTLY the same. the only difference is pronunciation alone. so what is more likely - you be the judge:
1. the Greek text was unreadable, so a scribe reconstructed the term and got it WRONG, even in light of the other parallel passages.
2. a translator read the Aramaic word, which is spelled exactly the same in singular or plural, and in translating into Greek ended up choosing the wrong term, thus explaining the singular and plural Greek variants still extant today.
so with the Peshitta, it is all in how the word is pronounced. there IS NO ISSUE via the Aramaic, unless you choose to read it in the singular - but remember, the vowelized text was not original, but added later. but if you go with the Greek, then you've got to decide which manuscript preserves the inspired words.
BOTH the Aramaic and the Greek texts read "staff" in Mark 6, which would make the plural reading of Matthew 10, etc., the obvious choice, as one staff would be okay, but don't stock up on them (ie, for defense, perhaps, as the road was a dangerous place). only the Peshitta explains why there are differing readings in the Greek.
any thoughts?
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy