Ephesians...not written in Greek?

[DrawCloser]

Shlama, I have been posting a lot of threads recently -- but this might be a find for Aramaic primacists.

Eph 1:18 ?your (plural) heart? (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Claromontanus, Byzantine Lectionary, Chrysostom, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Fayyumic Coptic, Ethiopic) vs. ?heart? (p46 c.200 A.D., Vaticanus)

? 1997-2011 by Christians Answers

There is disagreement among the early manuscripts about this.
With Syame markings absent from early Aramaic manuscripts, Zorba may have translated differently here.
This reveals an Aramaic original to Ephesians right? [b]Can someone confirm this?

---------------------------------------------
Credit:
Christian Debater®;, P.O. Box 144441, Tx 78714 (512) 218-8022.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.BibleQuery.org">http://www.BibleQuery.org</a><!-- m -->.

Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, Westcott and Hort, and all the other scholars who did work the Greek texts.
Paul Younan (because he brought 1:18 to attention)
Everyone else on this forum that helped with 1:18.


[** Sorry for the sloppiness of this post, but the information I posted here copyrighted by others.**]

[DrawCloser]

Hi everybody. Consider this one! (I don't know if it is an Armaic primacy proof. Somebody please confirm this)

in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

"Byzantine" reads: ton plouton (the treasure)

"Alexandrian" reads: to ploutos (the riches)

See for yourselves: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/?passage=Eph.1&view=parallel&ins%5B%5D=2&ins%5B%5D=4&del%5B%5D=5&strongs=1">http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/ma ... &strongs=1</a><!-- m -->


Again, is this the sign of an Aramaic original? And is the first one [in first post] a sign of an Aramaic original?

I started an Aramaic primacy thread for Ephesians because I feel that THIS is doubtful: Paul Younan's Eye of your hearts Aramaic primacy proof (No offense intended to Paul Younan, because Greek scribe may have tampered manuscripts to say "understanding" -- especially since the "understanding" variant is only in the Textus Receptus.)

[Paul Younan]

Hi DC

A couple of notes: this variant appears to be intra-Greek, as the words are very similar in Greek. I don't think this points to the Aramaic unfortunately.

Secondly, the post you linked to about understanding is incomplete in scope. Prior to that post, we spoke on the forum about the Semitic practice of associating wisdom not with the brain, but with the heart. As in, the heart rather than the brain was considered to be the seat of emotion and wisdom. This is prevalent in the old testament and other Semitic writings.

The fact that the variant exists in the Greek shows that Zorba understood, at times, this fact and translated more liberally to show the meaning instead of the strict wording.

+Shamasha

[DrawCloser]

Hi Paul. Thanks for pointing those out. So to me, it seems like the Aramaic primacy for this book is weak.

I want to say that the variant "understanding" only occurs in later manuscripts. (Even the Byzantine "Majority text" reads "hearts".) So let's just say: What if in the later centuries, a Christian Zorba familiar with Greek Old Testament (Picking up on the Semitic concept of heart from the Greek OT) -- that very same Zorba -- he may have changed the older reading to "understanding".

I feel that claiming an Aramaic original from "hearts-understanding" is not strong enough.

The Greek primacist could argue this: "Paul could have written the letter in Greek to the majority Greek congregation. Then...when the Gentiles would have encountered the verse -- they may have turned to the Semitic leaders of the congregation for clarification."

Maybe I'm just "lost in the fog"...

[Paul Younan]

Not lost at all. In fact there are very few "smoking guns" in our collection that can stand alone, being so obvious that only someone wanting to not see it will argue.

Rather, these things if taken as a pattern show us that there is an underlying Semitic vein underneath the skin of the Greek NT. Idioms are curious clues as to the thought process of an author. The fact that Paul used the idiom is more important than the fact that a later scribe tried to smooth it out in Greek.

[distazo]

Some homework draw <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

These are my notes
The explanations are in Dutch so I leave them out.
Ephesians 1:3;2:6
Ephesians 1:10
Ephesians 2:20
Ephesians 3:9
Ephesians 3:19
Ephesians 5:9
Ephesians 6:7
Ephesians 6:12

[DrawCloser]

Hi distazo (or "I doubt" ?)


1:3 Aramaic: "every blessing(s) of the Spirit"; Greek: ?every spiritual blessing? The Greek can mean "every blessing of the Spirit".

2:6 Christ Jesus (Greek) and Y'shu M'shiha (Aramaic) ? name order inverted.

1:10 Aramaic: "be renewed"; and Greek: "unite"

2:20 Alexandrian Greek reads Christ Jesus and Byzantine Greek reads Jesus Christ; Aramaic and Byzantine agree. Greek reads "chief corner" but Aramaic reads "chief corner of the building".

3:9 Consistent in the Aramaic and the Alexandrian Greek , but Majority text and TR add "through Jesus Christ" at the end. TR also reads "fellowship" instead of the Aramaic and older Greek "mystery"

3:19 Greek has ?that surpasses knowledge?; Peshitta has ?the grandeur of the knowledge?

5:9 "fruit of the light" is in the Aramaic and the Alexandrian text. The Majority text and TR read "the fruit of the Spirit".

5:19 Peshitta has "praise, and songs of the Spirit" instead of "hymns and spiritual songs". Greek can mean "songs of the Spirit" also.

6:7 Aramaic says to "serve with all the soul, in love" instead of Greek: ?in good will doing service?

6:12 Aramaic reads "evil spirits", while Greek reads ?spiritual evil?.

I can't read Aramaic, so I could not find any wordplays.
I realized there are variations between the Aramaic and Greek, but unfortunately, I still fail to see an Aramaic original after digging deeper.

And to Shamasha Paul: That Paul used "eye of your heart(s)" -- do you believe it indicates that there was a significant group of Arameans in that congregation?

[distazo]

My nickname distazo is from the time I was (unknowingly) Greek primacist. Keepha doubted and Yeshu took him by the hand. That's how I felt when I left the religion I was in, I had to trust the Lord, not the religious organization which claims to be mediator between us and Jesus..

But if you go on like this, for all 27 books, we can better copy some books here? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

As I wrote, G.D> Bauscher has strong explanation about the variances being from Aramaic to Greek not from Greek to Aramaic.


(Ephesians 1:10)

[DrawCloser]

But if you go on like this, for all 27 books, we can better copy some books here? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Don't get me started on Philippians! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

But... distazo... G.D. Bausher fine with you photocopying his books -- isn't there a copyright?

And may you explain Eph 1:10. The picture was somewhat cut off...

[distazo]

The note is complete. Maybe you have a smaller window.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.nl/images/ephesians1v10.png">http://www.peshitta.nl/images/ephesians1v10.png</a><!-- m -->

Well, copyright law allows us to do citations. But if you're interested in all the books having(or not) an Aramaic original, G.D. Bauscher has some original notes on the subject.
You can get his book in pdf or as a book on lulu.com

[konway87]

Check this video about Ephesians 1:18.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z3DCX4u1Wk&">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z3DCX4u1Wk&</a><!-- m -->

[DrawCloser]

Hi Paul, I just realized something. "eyes of your hearts" works in Greek.

Aristotle believed that the heart was the seat of emotions, sensations, thoughts, imaginations, and intellectual functions.

The belief of heart over brain existed in Greece and Rome in earlier times. (Eventually they discovered about the brain though) That makes a possibility that if Ephesians was written in Greek, the Greeks could have understood the idiom that apostle Paul wrote.

See:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/news/2004/features/wtx023667.htm">http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/news/2004/fea ... 023667.htm</a><!-- m -->

I didn't have any malicious intent, but I want to find out from you if my doubt is correct here.

[DrawCloser]

Thanks distazo for your post. I believe in an aramaic original. (I need to find out more because I believe Aramaic for this book yet waver with doubt).

**EDIT** Stopped doubting -- researched more on dukhrana -- Aramaic original to Ephesians. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Also, Paul, should Ephesians 1:18 be removed from the primacy proofs? -- because it seems likely that the Greeks understood "eye of your hearts".

{I do not want my post to come off the wrong way,} -- [I am] saying this because the Greek primacist could nail the Aramaic movement by making us out to be "misinformed amateurs".

And lastly, what I want to point out is that Peshitta has "sons of the inheritance" while Greek has fellow-heirs. Why would an Aramean scribe change a reading from "original" Greek into an idiom? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

[distazo]

No, actually, I added Eph 1:18 to my own list.
It is an example of dynamic translation with a semitic idiom behind it! The 'heart', like the OT shows, is a very special meaning and it still was for 1st century jews. To translate it with 'understanding' shows a different audience, the Greek one! (It is hard to see why, if the original was Greek) to translate 'understanding' to 'heart'. yada (knowledge/understanding) was not a strange concept because it's used often as well in the Peshitta.

[DrawCloser]

Hi distazo and Paul (and other users):

Secondly, the post you linked to about understanding is incomplete in scope. Prior to that post, we spoke on the forum about the Semitic practice of associating wisdom not with the brain, but with the heart. As in, the heart rather than the brain was considered to be the seat of emotion and wisdom.

The fact that the variant exists in the Greek shows that Zorba understood, at times, this fact and translated more liberally to show the meaning instead of the strict wording.

No, actually, I added Eph 1:18 to my own list.
It is an example of dynamic translation with a semitic idiom behind it! The 'heart', like the OT shows, is a very special meaning and it still was for 1st century jews. To translate it with 'understanding' shows a different audience, the Greek one! (It is hard to see why, if the original was Greek) to translate 'understanding' to 'heart'...

While I belive in an Aramaic original, I'm still confused about the credibility of Eph. 1:18. (I feel like this proof does not suffice.) Why? -- Zorba indeed did understand the idiom, but that Zorba was probably from 7th - 15th century A.D. No early manuscript of Ephesians has the reading of "understanding".

It seems like it is irrelevant that Zorba understood this idiom. Why? -- the Textus Receptus Zorba (7th - 15th century) changed the reading probably because of his familiarity with the LXX, since the LXX was around at that time. The Septuagint may have been a great source for that specific Zorba to learn about the Semitic heart thing. In fact, that the Majority text contains the literal reading gives hint that the Greeks probably did understand this idiom for a while. They had similar beliefs about the heart like the Semites did (until [the Greek] science changed that).

If I, an Aramaic primacist, doubt the credibility of this proof, how much more will a Greek primacist?!

(To be honest, I do seek correction here if I err. Is my side to this reasonable?) <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->