Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The biggest en baddest Split Word article of all time
#1
Okay, I have started a big article just for split words, because I love them - to me, the most irrefutable proof that the NT was written in Jesus' language, as opposed to a language of those who butchered His people. I know jack-all about Aramaic, so I mostly just chop up and plagiarise (without mercy) the likes of Paul Younan, Steve-o and AGR. You guys rule and every time I add a split word, don't hesitate to mention what can be added. I also in the article, go through around 30-40 diff. versions of Bible. Here's the unfinished intro and the first split word:

----------

Split Words ??? Undeniable and Irrefutable Evidence of Peshitta Primacy


???Split words???, are polysemous words (polysemy ??? having multiple meanings). The relevance of polysemy in the case for Peshitta primacy (the belief that the New Testament was written not in Greek, but in Aramaic, and that the Peshitta is the closest Bible we have to the original) is mind-blowing. This is how it works:

When comparing different Greek NT (New Testament) manuscripts and/or the English translations of said manuscripts, many differences are apparent. Sometimes, there is just a one word difference among verses from different manuscripts. In basic cases, some Greek texts will have the word ???Y??? (as an example) and some will have the word ???Z???. Now this one word, often changes the meaning of the verse, so these variants are quite important. Now, suppose we have a manuscript that has as the word in question, the word known as ???X???. Suppose also that this manuscript is in another language, an ancient language, and that ???X??? in this language can be translated to mean ???Y??? and ???Z???! Which manuscript would be better? The one that says ???Y???, ???Z??? or ???X????

Of course, the manuscript saying ???X??? would clearly be superior to the manuscripts that say ???Y??? and ???Z???, and it is also clear that both the ???Y??? and ???Z??? manuscripts are translated from the ???X??? manuscript, as the ???X??? manuscript happens to be in another language, and happens to be in a language used by Jesus, the Apostles and the earliest Christian, Judean Christians! It is also clear, that the differences between the Greek manuscripts are CAUSED by different translations of the same ???X manuscript???. Of course, the ???X manuscript??? I speak of is the Peshitta, the New Testament, as originally written in Aramaic. What would the probability be that this just occurred by chance? What if this phenomenon occurs twice? Thrice? Five times? Ten times? There are so many occurrences, it defies chance, and I will only be discussing a mere handful.

Now let us look at the evidence!


1. Burn or boast? - 1Corinthians 13:3

The KJV says: And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

The ISV says: Even if I give away all that I have and surrender my body so that I may boast but have no love, I get nothing out of it.

Versions that say burned or a variation thereof: ALT, AMP, ASV, BBE, CEV*, DARBY, Douay-Rheims, ESV*, Geneva, GodsWord, Holman, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MSG, NASB*, NIV*, NIV-UK, NKJV*, RSV, TEV, WE (Worldwide English), Webster, Weymouth, WYC (Wycliffe), YLT (Young???s Literal Translation).

The versions marked by an asterisk, *, have footnotes that mention that early mss (manuscripts) have boast or a variation thereof, rather than burn. It is noteworthy that the Alexandrian NU Text says boast also.

Versions that say boast or a variation thereof: ISV, NLT (New Living Translation), Rotherham.

Now, it just so happens that the Aramaic root [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]dqy [/font]can mean ???to burn???, but can also mean ???to boast???. It is clear that the disagreements in the Greek texts, points to the Aramaic original. Here is the verse from the Peshitta, translated by Paul Younan:

???And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.???

???The reading kauchvswmai (kauchswmai, "I might boast") is in manuscripts like ??46 ?? A B 048 33 1739*.
The competing reading, kauqhvsomai (kauqhsomai, "I will burn"), is found in C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers. A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: kauqhvswmai (kauqhswmai) ("I might burn") and kauqh' ("it might be burned") read by 1505.

BTW - Dr. Bruce Metzger (the ultimate Greek primacist) notes that the latter reading is a "grammatical monstrosity that cannot be attributed to Paul" (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, page 498).
This is clear evidence of the Aramaic roots of the various Greek texts.??? ??? Paul Younan

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Paul Younan of Peshitta.org for this split word and for the translation of the verse into English.

Also, as a ???side project??? during this exhausting work on split words, it may be interesting and refreshing to compare the two main families of Greek texts (the Byzantine/Majority/Received family and the Alexandrian family), after every spilt word is explained. In this case, the Alexandrian mss tended to be more correct (boast) than the Byzantine mss. The score: 1-0 for the Alexandrians.


2.




-----


btw please do not take it to mean that I support teh Alexandrian texts. I think most comparing of Peshitta to Byzantine, shows Byzantine to be superior to Alexandrian.

Regards,

Chris
Reply
#2
Akhi - great article!

Would you mind if we posted it in "Beth-Gaza" when you have it completed? :wink:
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Would I mind? Are you joking??? That stuff is written by you, Steve-o, AGR and others. I just do the monkey work of compiling it together and trawling through the many diff. Bible versions. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> In fact, you guys should add where you can, as later split words I 'compile' won't be as comprehensive - and I have no ability to check the different Greek manuscripts, what you do. This stuff belongs to all of us, take and post whatever you want.

Regards,

Chris
Reply
#4
What is Beth Gaza?
Reply
#5
drmlanc Wrote:What is Beth Gaza?

My fancy name for the "Articles" section to the left. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
That would be cool <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#7
Notes: did I get the right Aramaic letters for Tnn? Is imitators better, or is zealous better? Please let me know ASAP, then I can edit it accordingly.

Thanks,

Chris

-----


2. Be an imitator or be zealous ??? 1Peter 3:13

The DARBY says: ???And who shall injure you if ye have become imitators of that which [is] good????

The NASB says: ???Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good????

Versions that say imitators, followers or a variation thereof: ALT, DARBY, Geneva, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, NKJV, Webster, WYC, YLT.

Versions that say zealous, eager, or a variation thereof: AMP, ASV, CEV, Douay-Rheims, ESV, NASB, NIV, NIV-UK, NLT, Rotherham, RSV, TEV, Weymouth.

Now, it just so happens that the Aramaic root [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]tnn[/font] can mean ???to be zealous???, but can also mean ???to imitate???. It is clear that the disagreements in the Greek texts, points to the Aramaic original.

???Some Greek texts have  (imitators) in 1st Peter 3:13 and some have  (zealous).
Well, if we could show by a lexicon that the word used in the Peshitta text can mean both, we would have good support for Aramaic primacy of 1st Peter...right? The corresponding word in the Peshitta text is 'tanana.' Let's take a look at the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon under its root code 'Tnn'...
Tnn N Tnn)
1 Syr zeal
2 Syr envy

Tnn V
021 JLAGal to moisten
Tnn#2 V
011 Syr to be aroused
012 Syr to be zealous
013 Syr %b% to envy
014 Syr %b% to imitate
041 Syr to come to envy
021 Syr to arouse someone's zeal
051 Syr to suffer from zeal
031 Syr to arouse someone's envy
032 Syr to make to emulate

Tnn A
1 Syr zealous
2 Syr champion
3 Syr emulator
4 Syr envious

That's why you have Greek variants that don't look anything alike except for the '-tai' ending...'mimetai' versus 'zelotai' ~~ 'imitators' versus 'zealous'
The texts that have 'mimetai' (imitators) are the 1550 Stephens Textus Receptus, the 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text.
The Alexandrian Text has 'zelotai' (zealous) as well as these:
1 Pet 3:13. Read "be zealous" instead of "be imitators". L T Tr A W WH N NA
L=Lachmann 1842, T=Tischendorf 1869, Tr=Tregelles 1857, A=Alford 1849 as revised in 1871, W=Wordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870, WH=Westcott & Hort 1881, N=Collation in progress of Nestle 1927 as revised in 1941 (17th). NA=Nestle-Aland 1979 (Aland et al. 1979)??? ??? Larry Kelsey

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Larry Kelsey for this split word.

In this case, as Mr. Kelsey pointed out, the Alexandrian version usually say zealous and the Byzantine usually says imitators. The Byzantine reading (imitator) is the better one. The score: 1-1, the Byzantines have equalized.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)