Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof

i've been wanting to share this for awhile, but i just got finished going through 2nd Corinthians, and so i'll share this gem from 12:7. the Peshitta texts reads:

And so that I was not exalted by the abundance of the visions there was delivered to me a thorn for my flesh, a messenger of Satana, to beat upon me, that I should not be exalted.

the word of interest is SATANA.

going to the Greek side of things, we have a curious variant here:

Greek texts like p46 Aleph* A* B D* F G 0243 1739 etc, contain the reading SATANA.
Greek texts like Ac D2 Byz, etc, contain the reading SATAN.

SATANA is the Aramaic pronunciation, and is found also in many other places in the Greek NT manuscripts, also where the ARamaic reads SATANA. this alone is an evidence for Aramaic primacy, but it gets better...

SATAN is the Hebrew form of the word.

so what the Greek texts have here is a transliteration from Aramaic in some texts, and a transliteration from Hebrew in other texts. if you're a Greek primacist, you have to decide why there is a Hebrew pronunciation variant when SATANA is otherwise common. if you're a Hebrew primacist (for the few who may still be), you have to decide why there is an Aramaic pronunciation in the Greek. both camps will be at a loss for explanation.

BUT.... if you're an Aramaic primacist, you have a really easy and logical explanation for this variant:

the Aramaic SATANA is the emphatic of SATAN, that is, instead of the Hebrew reading of HASATAN, meaning "THE SATAN," Aramaic reads SATANA, meaning "The SATAN." so SATANA is merely the Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew term.

so if a scribe were translating FROM the Aramaic TO the Greek, he comes across this word, sees SATANA, and transliterates it as is = SATANA. but say another scribe comes along, sees the Aramaic SATANA, and knows it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew, and so transliterates it minus the emphatic = SATAN.

this would make sense for a scribe who might have been more acquainted with the Greek OT, which NEVER used SATANA, but only the transliteration of SATAN, to have transliterated the Aramaic into the Hebrew pronunciation that someone familiar with the LXX would have understood. since the LXX is a translation from the Hebrew, it would only make sense that SATANA is never used in it. thus, SATAN would be the familiar form for Greek readers, and makes sense why a scribe might conceivably choose the more well known transliteration.

the primacy proof is so simple, because BOTH variants can only be explained via Aramaic:

SATANA IS Aramaic, plain and simple
SATAN can be explained via transliterating from Aramaic, which was transliterating from Hebrew

either way, the Greek shows itself to be from the Aramaic. pretty cool how a "Hebrew" variant becomes a proof for Aramaic primacy! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> i'd like to do some checking when i get the time to see if this variant exists at other instances of SATANA in the Greek. this is the first time i've noticed it, though.

Chayim b'Moshiach,

Messages In This Thread
A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Burning one - 10-24-2011, 11:17 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-10-2012, 03:52 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-11-2012, 10:42 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-12-2012, 01:29 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-13-2012, 09:55 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-14-2012, 07:31 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-15-2012, 07:23 AM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-16-2012, 01:14 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)