10-25-2013, 06:16 AM
I do agree with Steve we have more sources to use as an object of study, it's not just and only the (as)syrian text as if that IS the Original, just to name an example, where only a Greek John 8 includes the woman in aldultery story, which to me is certainly authentic.
The apostles impossibly (like in Acts 15) could have written using Estrangelo to the congregations using the Sriac dialect, just to name an example, another sample where Paul spoke to the Athens, in Aramaic? No, of course, in Greek, so Acts 17 is a translation of the 'pure original', not the original itself.
But I do not cease to be surprised. For instance, John 19:19,20 is writing about the writing above Yeshua's cross. Was it a stone tablet? According to the Greek it was a 'titron' (and that can be either stone or wood, is it?). And the Syriac lexicon seems to imply that as well, (compare Lamsa translation) John 19:19. So, it looks as if somebody could write in an instance of time, during that timeframe, in 3 languages, on stone tablets, I?m not a historian, but writing on stone tables in 3 languages looks like an expensive and time consuming operation.
But the same Syraic word is used in Acts 27, where the people from the boot escaped to the coast using 'stone tables or 'titrons'? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> I think not, so the correct translation must be a (wooden) board, since boats were made of wood.
You cannot get this kind of nice details using a lexicon, because these lexicons, of course, have been made while comparing the Greek NT, so kinda, tiny mistakes are being included in the modern Aramaic translations as well, unless you really do a word-context research on the peshitta itself. (Dukhrana is really helpful)
The apostles impossibly (like in Acts 15) could have written using Estrangelo to the congregations using the Sriac dialect, just to name an example, another sample where Paul spoke to the Athens, in Aramaic? No, of course, in Greek, so Acts 17 is a translation of the 'pure original', not the original itself.
But I do not cease to be surprised. For instance, John 19:19,20 is writing about the writing above Yeshua's cross. Was it a stone tablet? According to the Greek it was a 'titron' (and that can be either stone or wood, is it?). And the Syriac lexicon seems to imply that as well, (compare Lamsa translation) John 19:19. So, it looks as if somebody could write in an instance of time, during that timeframe, in 3 languages, on stone tablets, I?m not a historian, but writing on stone tables in 3 languages looks like an expensive and time consuming operation.
But the same Syraic word is used in Acts 27, where the people from the boot escaped to the coast using 'stone tables or 'titrons'? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> I think not, so the correct translation must be a (wooden) board, since boats were made of wood.You cannot get this kind of nice details using a lexicon, because these lexicons, of course, have been made while comparing the Greek NT, so kinda, tiny mistakes are being included in the modern Aramaic translations as well, unless you really do a word-context research on the peshitta itself. (Dukhrana is really helpful)