Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 Corinthians Aramaic primacy doubted...
#16
What is really odd is that Alexandrian Zorba (1) chose to render this discrepancy OR (2) allow it to remain from another Zorba's work... (See Alexandrian 1 Cor. 1:22-24)

And is Aramaya and Armaya distinguised only by 'Syame markings'? Because I checked dukhrana.com and it appears that 'armaya' is the only Peshitta word...

Please correct me if I am wrong...
Reply
#17
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Distazo and DrawCloser,

That's an excellent point you made about the Alexandrian variant, DrawCloser - and we should list that in the forum as it's own proof of Aramaic primacy (where the two Greek texts are both drawn from the same Aramaic source).

If Paul wanted to use the word "Greek" specifically, there already is an Aramaic word specifically for that ethnic group ("Yonaye", from "Ionian") See Colossians 3:11 "There is neither Jew (Yehudaya) nor Gentile (Aramaya), Circumcision nor Uncircumcision, Greek (Yonaya) nor Barbarian (Barbaraya)....etc"

If Paul meant to say "Greek", specifically, he would say "Yonaya" like he did in Colossians 3:11, and not use the generic term for Gentile.

+Shamasha

Akhi Paul,

Good point, but I was not speaking about the superior Col 3:11 in the Peshitta, but about the mentioning of ethnic groups, _not_ of religious kind.
My question is: WHy do the Arameans, both CoE as Christian Syrians render themselves as 'Gentiles' in the NT while all kind of ethnic groups and cities _are_ mentioned!
Isnt it more than logic to render Syrians instead of 'gentiles' because where are the syrians??? They were a major population, not?
Reply
#18
distazo Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Distazo and DrawCloser,

That's an excellent point you made about the Alexandrian variant, DrawCloser - and we should list that in the forum as it's own proof of Aramaic primacy (where the two Greek texts are both drawn from the same Aramaic source).

If Paul wanted to use the word "Greek" specifically, there already is an Aramaic word specifically for that ethnic group ("Yonaye", from "Ionian") See Colossians 3:11 "There is neither Jew (Yehudaya) nor Gentile (Aramaya), Circumcision nor Uncircumcision, Greek (Yonaya) nor Barbarian (Barbaraya)....etc"

If Paul meant to say "Greek", specifically, he would say "Yonaya" like he did in Colossians 3:11, and not use the generic term for Gentile.

+Shamasha

Akhi Paul,

Good point, but I was not speaking about the superior Col 3:11 in the Peshitta, but about the mentioning of ethnic groups, _not_ of religious kind.
My question is: WHy do the Arameans, both CoE as Christian Syrians render themselves as 'Gentiles' in the NT while all kind of ethnic groups and cities _are_ mentioned!
Isnt it more than logic to render Syrians instead of 'gentiles' because where are the syrians??? They were a major population, not?

Shlama Akhi.

The short answer is they translated it as gentile at first, which in many cases is defensible. Then they went to Greek after that.

Apparently Syrians or Arameans went extinct during the new testament period. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->. Everyone was Greek!
Reply
#19
ok, I get the hint <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Everybody was a Greek.
When the middle age knights came to 'free Jerusalem', they also were wondering why everybody spoke Greek <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

But let me tell you that I translated Aramaya to Syrian and 'Amaya' as gentile. Not based on lexicons, but on gut-feeling and the fact that in the OT the same word, but in Hebrew (2 ki 5:20), simply does not mean Gentile but Syrian.

And in revelation 9:11, the book which the CoE does not see as accepted book, Aramayit also occurs as a separate word.
Reply
#20
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi.

The short answer is they translated it as gentile at first, which in many cases is defensible. Then they went to Greek after that.

Apparently Syrians or Arameans went extinct during the new testament period. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->. Everyone was Greek!

Paul, who 'translated it as gentile'? Did you mean the Zorbans or the CoE scribes?

Also, I was going over this thread, and forgive me please -- but in simple English may you tell me -- should the Peshitta text for [1 Cor. 1:22-24, 10:32] mean "Syrian" or "Gentile"?
Reply
#21
DrawCloser Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi.

The short answer is they translated it as gentile at first, which in many cases is defensible. Then they went to Greek after that.

Apparently Syrians or Arameans went extinct during the new testament period. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->. Everyone was Greek!

Paul, who 'translated it as gentile'? Did you mean the Zorbans or the CoE scribes?

Also, I was going over this thread, and forgive me please -- but in simple English may you tell me -- should the Peshitta text for [1 Cor. 1:22-24, 10:32] mean "Syrian" or "Gentile"?

Hi DC

I meant that as a joke, pointing to whoever translated those verses into Greek.

I would translate both chapters there as gentile. Perhaps 10:32 as pagan, even. The word Greek or Aramean doesn't make sense in the context of 10:32.

+Shamasha
Reply
#22
Hi Paul,
Why would Jews + Syrians + Church of God in verse 32 make no sense?
Reply
#23
distazo Wrote:Hi Paul,
Why would Jews + Syrians + Church of God in verse 32 make no sense?

Syrians doesn't make sense in that context firstly because thats an ethnic designation, unlike Jews and the Church of God. The latter two are religious terms. Paganism is a religion. Pagan makes more sense here.

Additionally, there is meant to be a contrast between these three groups. Because there can be Syrians in the Church of God, it makes more sense to translate this word as pagan.
Reply
#24
Ok, 1 Cor. 7:14 is one puzzling verse.

Alexandrian" (NA27, also Westcott-Hort): Wrote:For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Peshitta and the Textus Receptus Wrote:For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. (WEB)

This occurence in the Greek eliminates the possibility of a copying error. Greek andri (husband) and adelphw (brother) are so different! A scribe's eye could not mistake those. Also, modern English translations circumvent this odd occurence, but you can see it in the Nestle-Aland Greek text.


Paul: from your knowledge of Aramaic, is there any polysemy or mistranslation present? (I checked dukhrana.com and I was unable to to discern anything that shows polysemy or mistranslation.)

Or is this a dud?
Reply
#25
Hi Paul,

Isn't it possible that just like today, in the middle-east many people are called 'arabs' while not meaning an ethnic group but a language group?
Jews had their 'language' (ivrait, aramaic with it's specific idiom because of the targum and visiting the SYnagogue, it could have been quite standard) and the other people in the middle-east spoke some aramaic dialect.

So, I can imagine that apostle Paul often adressed the groups in the Middle-East by mentioning the biggest denominator(s).
E.g. take Romans 2:9.
"first the Jews and also the Aramaye".
Strictly the jews as 'ethnic' expression or a religious expression is a huge discussion. The same must be applied, I think, to ARamaye. It's not the people who are 'from Aram' but some culture, which was unified by the language, just like Arabic today.

ps: Why the fuzz? There are already aramaic words for 'nations', 'foreigners', 'unbelievers' and none of them include 'armaye' as source. The Dutch translation, for pagans and gentiles, sounds quite hostile towards others.
Reply
#26
Hi Distazo.

Yes, it could go either way but I still think the gentile/pagan meaning is meant in this verse simply because the church is inclusive of all nations. There is no reason to single out Arameans or Greeks, as apart from the church.

This verse makes sense with Jews, Christians and Pagans (armaye...not Aramaye) as three distinct groups.
Reply
#27
@ Paul: Since there was no reply on 1 Cor. 7:14 -- it is safe to assume that variant is just nothing?
Reply
#28
I'm guessing it was just a scribal error on behalf of the Alexandrian scribe because there is a mention of a brother in verse 15.
Reply
#29
DrawCloser Wrote:@ Paul: Since there was no reply on 1 Cor. 7:14 -- it is safe to assume that variant is just nothing?

This appears to be an inter-Greek error, unrelated to an underlying Aramaic source.
Reply
#30
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Distazo.

Yes, it could go either way but I still think the gentile/pagan meaning is meant in this verse simply because the church is inclusive of all nations. There is no reason to single out Arameans or Greeks, as apart from the church.

This verse makes sense with Jews, Christians and Pagans (armaye...not Aramaye) as three distinct groups.

Thanks. I still have doubts in 12:2
you have been pagans (hanpe)
(Etheridge) that ye have been pagans ; and have been, without distinction, led away after idols, in which there is no speech.

So, if Armaye means 'pagans' why did Paul not use that word in 12:2?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)