“the early Syriac versions are translations of the gospels”
Evidence that the Peshitta NT is a translation?
===============
“Peshitta sometimes includes paraphrases… which are not otherwise found in the Greek and Latin manuscript traditions”
2 examples from the Peshitta New Testament?
The Greek translation of the Aramaic contains mistranslations and at-least 10 glosses.
===============
“my 1989 edition of the Alands’ textbook on NT text criticism and found this (p 197):
‘The very presence of Old Syriac readings in the Peshitta”
2 examples?
===============
What city name does the Old Syriac have in Acts xxi. 7?
Does the Old Syriac have heathen/ pagan anywhere in the NT?
Greek mss. have ‘politically-correct’ references to non-Judeans, and have a particular place’s more-current name;
in contrast, the Aramaic Peshitta has ‘politically-_in_correct’ references to non-Judeans, and has a particular place’s antiquated name.
“kh-n-p-th-a” — godless, gentile, heathen, foreigner, profane.
Lexeme 1:1096 appears in
Matthew 6:7, 10:5, 18:17
Mark 7:26
John 7:35
Acts 18:4, 18:17
1Cor 5:1, 10:20, 10:27, 12:2
1Peter 4:3
Norton, William. 1889. _A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshito-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, With an Introduction on the Peshito-Syriac Text, and the Revised Greek Text of 1881_ (London: W.K. Bloom), ~140pp. What’s below is from a Google books copy; the book is also at
https://archive.org/details/tr…..neng00nort
In the Introduction, pages l – li:
In the names of places, the Peshito shows the same independence of the Greek. . . . . in Acts xxi. 7, the Gk. has, Ptolemais; the Syriac has, Acu.
Mr. Jer. Jones, in his work on the Canon, 1798, contends that the use of the name Acu, for Ptolemais, is a decisive proof that the Peshito must have been made not far in time from A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. (vol. i. p. 103.) He says that the most ancient name of this place among the Israelites was Aco, or Acco, Judges i.31; that this name was afterwards changed to Ptolemais; that some say it had its new name from Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B.C. He says it is certain that the old name Aco, was antiquated and out of use in the time of the Romans, and that the use of the old name Acu, in the Peshito, can be accounted for in no other way, but by supposing that the persons for whom the version was made were more acquainted with it, than with the new name Ptolemais; that upon any other supposition it would have been absurd for him to have used Acu. He says, that until the destruction of Jerusalem, one may suppose that the Jews may have retained the old name Aco still, out of fondness for its antiquity; but, he says,
“how they, or any other part of Syria, could, after the Roman conquest, call it by a name different from the Romans, seems to me impossible to conceive. . . To suppose, therefore, that this translation, in which we meet with this old name, instead of the new one, was made at any great distance of time after the destruction of Jerusalem, is to suppose the translator to have substituted an antiquated name known to but few, for a name well known to all” (pp. 104, 105.)
Mr. Jones says that a similar proof that the Peshito cannot have been made much after A.D. 70, is found in the fact that the Peshito often calls the Gentiles, as the Jews were accustomed to do, _profane persons_, where the Greek calls them _the nations_, that is, the Gentiles. The Peshito calls them profane, in Matt. vi.7; x.5; xviii.17; Mark vii.26; John vii.35; Acts xviii.4, 17; 1 Cor. v.1; x.20, 27; xii.2; 1 Pet. iv.3. The expression is used, therefore, throughout the Peshito. Mr. Jones says, that it shows that the writer was a Jew, for no other person would have called all the world profane; and that after the destruction of the temple, all Hebrew Christians must have seen that other nations were not to be reckoned unclean and profane in the Jewish sense, and that therefore this version must have been made either before, or soon after, A.D. 70. (On Canon, Vol. i., pp. 106-110.)
===============
How do you account for the geographical details present in the Peshitta, but lacking in Greek mss.?
What letters are had in the Old Syriac for these geographical locations?
Capernaum. Bethania. Bethphage. Bethesda in John v.2.
Johann David Michaelis, _Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (and a Dissertation on the origin and composition of the three first gospels)_ as translated by Herbert Marsh, 4 vols., vol. 2 part 1 (1802), 43-44
https://books.google.com/books…..38;pg=PA39
In the Curæ, in Act. Apost. § vi. p. 73, 74. I have taken notice of certain traces in the Syriac version, which lead to the supposition of its having been made by a native Jew. To the reasons alleged in that treatise, which I submit to the determination of my readers, I will add, that the Syriac translator appears to have been so well acquainted with Palestine, that he must at least have visited that country, for he has frequently restored geographical names in the Greek Testament to their true Oriental orthography. Capernaum is written in the Syriac Testament … , that is, the village of Nahum; Bethania, is written … ; Bethphage is written … , which perfectly corresponds to its situation, for … , in Arabic, signifies ‘a valley between two opposite mountains,’ an etymology which alone removes a contradiction which was supposed to exist between the New Testament and the Talmud ; and Bethesda, John v.2. is written … , which is probably conformable to the derivation, whether we translate it ‘place of favour,’ or ‘place of the conflux of waters.’ The Syriac version therefore is the surest, and indeed the only guide, in discovering the etymology of geographical names, for the Arabic versions are too modern, and in other translations it was impossible to preserve the orthography of the East.
===============
“The Old Syriac is only extant in two manuscripts of the gospels. No Acts or letters”
C = Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus
S = Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus
— per _The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 1, Matthew and Mark) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), 381pp. by E. Jan Wilson, xv
on 48
Mt 6:7
S6.7 “saying vain things like the heathen, who”
C6.7 “babbling like the hypocrites, for they”
on 78
Mt 10:5
S10.5 “walk in the way of gentiles”
No mention of C.
on 168
Mt 18:17
S18.17 “consider him like a heathen”
C18.17 “consider him like a heathen”
on 310
Mark 7:26
S7.26 “That woman was a widow from the area of Tyre of Phoenicia, and she pleaded with him to cast the spirit out of her daughter.”
No mention of C.
_The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 2, Luke and John) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), with pages numbered 384-850, by E. Jan Wilson
https://www.amazon.com/Old-Syriac-Gospel...931956189/
on 750
John 7:35
"going then to teach the descendents of the Arameans" -- both Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus and Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus
“there are some who still believe the Peshitta is older than the current general consensus of critical scholars”
According to “the current general consensus of critical scholars,” what is the age of the NT Peshitta? And from what was it translated?
“It is generally held that the Syriac translation of the Jewish scriptures was made directly from the Hebrew”
and the Aramaic e.g. in Daniel– I agree for the OT.
“and perhaps this influenced translation of New Testament books as well. Perhaps this, or other semitic cultural influences, introduced some of these apparently archaic usages into the Syriac translations of New Testament books as well”
===============
When quoting Isaiah 42:2, from where did the Greek Matthew 12:19 get “quarrel”?
(the Masoretic? the LXX? the Peshitta Matthew 12:19?)
_The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 1, Matthew and Mark) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), 381pp. by E. Jan Wilson, lvi
Matt. 12:19…. The word used in the Greek text is ερισει “quarrel,” which cannot have been taken either from the Hebrew Masoretic text (which has the word …), nor from the LXX (which has ανησει)….
Matthew 12:19 (Berean Literal Bible)
https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-19.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/matt…../12-19.htm
He will not quarrel [Greek: οὐκ/ouk/not ἐρίσει/ erisei/ will He quarrel] nor will he cry out;
nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.
Isaiah 42:2 interlinear
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/42-2.htm
Not יִצְעַ֖ק/yiṣ-‘aq/He-will-cry-out nor יִשָּׂ֑א/yiś-śā/raise-[His-voice]
nor cause to be heard in the street His voice
Isaiah 42:2 (JPS Tanakh 1917)
https://biblehub.com/jps/isaiah/42.htm
He shall not cry, nor lift up,
Nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
Isaiah 42:2 (HCSB)
https://biblehub.com/hcsb/isaiah/42.htm
He will not cry out or shout
or make His voice heard in the streets.
Isaiah 42:2 (Brenton Septuagint)
https://biblehub.com/sep/isaiah/42.htm
He shall not cry, nor lift up _his voice_,
nor shall his voice be heard without.
Isaiah 42:2 (LXX)
οὐ κεκράξεται οὐδὲ ἀνήσει,
οὐδὲ ἀκουσθήσεται ἔξω ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ.
Isaiah 42:2 (Peshitta Tanakh, Lamsa)
http://superbook.org/LAMSA/ISA/isa42.htm
He shall not cry, nor make a sound,
nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
Isaiah 42:2, in _Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English_, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich (1999), 649pp., 337
He will not cry out or raise his voice
or make it heard in the street.
Matthew 12:19
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) He shall not contend nor cry,
And no man shall hear his voice in the street.
(Murdock) He shall not contend, nor be clamorous,
nor shall any one hear his voice in the market-place.
(Lamsa) He will not argue, nor will he cry aloud;
and no man will hear his voice in the street.
(KJV) He shall not strive, nor cry;
neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
ḥry vb. Gt to maintain a position
C View a KWIC
1 to urge to hold fast to a position Syr. IS 48:14 .
2 to prepare (?) Syr. P Job10:17 ….
Gt View a KWIC
1 to cling tightly, get stuck Syr. EphFid 81:12.3…. if the boat got stuck the waves broke it up. P Acts27:41 …. the ship tried to go into a high spot between two sea-depths, but got stuck. (a) fig. : to be eager for something Syr. JulSok 31(12):10 …. nor was he eager to enter once he had learned our desire.
2 fig.: to contend, disagree strongly CPA, Syr. AphDem5.101:4 …. P Is1:20 …. P Acts12:15 ….
while she was insisting that it was thus. (a) …. to litigate Syr. P Gn49:23 : ….
Derivatives:
…. adj. contentious …. n.f. litigiousness …. n.m. controversy …. n.f. contentiousness …. adj. contentious …. adv. contentiously …. n.f. squabble
===============
“predominant opinion is early fifth century”
Evidence/ arguments for that date for the NT Peshitta?
“The Peshitta is generally thought to be a revision of the Old Syriac and the Diatesseron for the gospels”
I find it hard to believe that anybody seriously thinks that the Diatesseron was untangled to come up with the Peshitta’s 4 gospels.
Evidence for thinking that the Peshitta is:
“a revision of the Old Syriac”?
“a revision of… the Diatesseron”?
“and translation from Greek manuscripts for most of the rest of the New Testament”
What language do you think Revelation was originally written in? (Greek?)
“Some parts of the New Testament were still left out until a later version in the early sixth century (eg, Philoxenos)”
Which parts “were still left out”?
===============
“Matthew 12:19 get ‘quarrel’”
“How would one prove that the Peshitta did not get it from the Greek?”
Maybe I can come up with some arguments.
‘Quarrel’ might have appeared first in:
Aramaic and then Greek,
Greek and then Aramaic,
some other language and then Greek and then Aramaic,
some other language and then Aramaic and then Greek.
In the Aramaic, Mt’s rendition of the Lord’s Prayer has much rhyming. The Aramaic Lk’s version has less rhyming. I didn’t notice any rhyming in the Greek nor a Hebrew version.
Do you think that it’s possible that someone translated a non-rhyming Greek Lord’s Prayer into a rhyming Aramaic Lord’s Prayer?
What language do you think the lord’s prayer was originally in?
A transliteration of the Aramaic Mt 6:9-13:
Ah-woon ** our Father
d’wash-may-ya ** in heaven
============================
nith-qad-dash shmakh ** holy be Your name
teh’-theh’ ** come
mal-koo-thakh ** Your kingdom
neh-weh ** be done
tsow-ya-nakh ** Your will
============================
ay-kan-na ** as
d’wash-may-ya ** in heaven
ap b’ar-aa ** so on earth.
11 ============================
haw lan ** give us
lakh-ma ** the bread
d’son-qa-nan ** of our need
yo-ma-na ** this day
12 ============================
ow’shwoq lan ** and forgive us
khow-beyn ** our offences
ay-kan-na d’ap kha-nan ** as also we
shwa-qan ** have forgiven
l’khay-ya-wen ** those who have offended us
13 ============================
ow’la ** and not
ta’-lan ** bring us
l’nis-you-na ** into trial
al-la pas-san ** but deliver us
min bee-sha ** from the evil one
============================
modt-dtil d’dee-lak ** for of yours
hee mal-koo-tha ** is the Kingdom
ow’khay-la ** and the power
ow’tish-bokh-tha ** and the glory
l’al-um ail-meen. ** to the age (of) ages, or: to the world (of) worlds
Mt 6:10’s “as” uses the letters “aikna,” while Lk 11:2’s “as” uses “aik.”
Also, Mt 6:11 uses “yomna”– this day, daily– while Lk 11:3 instead uses “klium”– every day, daily.
Hence, in at least 2 places, the Luke version means the same, but has less-perfect rhyming compared with the Matthew version.
===============================
“read some of the scholarly literature supporting this view”
I looked at the Peshitta chapter in
Arthur Voobus, _Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac_ (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Subsidia Tome 3) (1951), 219pp., 46-60
and didn’t notice any good arguments for an “early fifth century” date for the NT Peshitta.
Perhaps another item in
https://evangelicaltextualcrit…..raphy.html
would have something.
“hard to believe that anybody seriously thinks that the Diatesseron was untangled to come up with the Peshitta’s 4 gospels”
“Me too”
What do you think came first: Tatian’s Diatesseron in Aramaic, or the Peshitta’s 4 gospels?
“Probably 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation”
How come those ‘Western Five’ were left out of the NT Peshitta? (the canon got closed before any of those books gained acceptance?)
===============
“Vööbus… is not a believer in Peshitta primacy. He believes it is a translation from the Greek, as did Michaelis”
On what basis/ grounds? (“scholarly consensus”?)
“I do have a healthy respect for a scholarly consensus unless and until I hear good arguments against it”
If portions of the Greek NT had syntactical features similar to the LXX’s ‘translation Greek,’ would that be evidence that those Greek NT passages were translated from a semitic language?
“I am not a specialist in Syriac versions of the New Testament”
Are you a specialist in any NT fields, and if so, which?
“That’s your argument for the version of Isaiah 42,2 quoted by Mt 12,19 first appearing in an Aramaic original of Matthew’s gospel and only subsequently being translated into a Greek version?”
Not that I know of.
“There’s no debate about whether or not Jesus spoke Aramaic”
Is there any debate about what language his 12 students: spoke? wrote in?
“That the prayer can thus be retro-translated into a simple but elegant Aramaic or Hebrew version should not be surprising”
Which Lord’s Prayer do you consider more elegant:
the Greek version, or the Aramaic version?
===============
“his book. What does he say?”
I looked thru Vööbus’s book, and just now read the concluding, summarizing chapter “New Light on Old Textual Problems,” and didn’t see any arguments for any of the Aramaic versions being derived from Greek.
While looking for a Mark item, I came across
Johann David Michaelis, _Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (and a Dissertation on the origin and composition of the three first gospels)_ as translated by Herbert Marsh, 4 vols., vol. 2 part 1 (1802), 40+
https://books.google.com/books…..38;pg=PA39
The Peshito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read; that of Luther, though in some respects inferior to his translation of the Old Testament, holding the second rank. Of all the Syriac authors, with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephrem and BarHebræus, its language is the most elegant and pure, not loaded with foreign words, like the Philoxenian version, and other later writings, and discovers the hand of a master, in rendering those passages, where the two idioms deviate from each other. It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original; and this excellence of style must be ascribed to its antiquity, and to its being written in a city that was the residence of Syrian kings. See Rom. ix. 20. xiii. 1. Heb. vii. 3. 8. Acts v. 37. xix. 39. xxii. 3. xxvii. 3. compared with the first section of the Curæ in Act. Apost. Syr. where I have pointed out the excellent manner in which the the Syriac translator has rendered the Greek phrases, and in the third and sixth section of the Curæ other examples are quoted.
It is true that the Syriac version, like all human productions, is not destitute of faults, and, what is not to be regarded as a blemish, differs frequently from the modern modes of explanation : but I know of none that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence, in cases of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray a weakness and ignorance in the translator; and though in many other translations the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must be ever read with profound veneration.
Several explanations that were necessary for a Greek reader are omitted in the Syriac version, as being useless to a native Syrian: for instance, those of Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani, Matth. xxvii. 46. Ephphatha, Mark vii. 34. Siloam, John ix. 7. Tabitha, Acts ix. 36. Talitha kumi, Mark v. 41. Corban, Mark vii. 11. and Messias, John iv. 25. However, it is uncertain whether this omission is to be attributed to the ancient translator, or to subsequent transcribers. See the Curæ, p. 60.
The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine is so great, as to justify in some respects the assertion, that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spake. The dialect of Jerusalem was East-Aramæan, or, as we call it, Chaldee, and according to this dialect are written the Aramæan words that are found in the Greek Testament, for instance Acts i. 19. 1 Cor. xvi. 22. The Syriac New Testament is written in the same language, but in a different dialect. In Galilee, though West-Aramæan was spoken, that is the dialect of Syria on this side the Euphrates, and of Mesopotamia, yet it was extremely corrupted, as may be gathered from the writings of the Sabii. The Syriac New Testament was certainly not written in this corrupt dialect, but in the purest Mesopotamian: and it is probable that Christ, though educated at Nazareth, used not the dialect of that country, but that of Judæa, which was spoken by Joseph and Mary: at least … and other Aramæan expressions, are not Galilæan but pure Chaldee. The difference between the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode of pronouncing, and if a proper use had been made of this advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages would be made clear, if the words were still on record which Jesus spake with his disciples in the Aramæan language, whether the dialect be called Syriac or Chaldee. But the translator appears not to have been fortunate in rendering passages of this nature, of which I will produce a single instance, Matth. xxviii. 1. … If this had been translated …, every Syrian would have immediately understood it, and it would have naturally led to the explanation that I have given of it in the fifth section of the fourth chapter. But it is translated …, where he has preserved only one half of the Aramæan idiom: and I have frequently observed that, where it is almost unavoidable to render a Syriasm of the original by the same turn of phrase in the version, the translator has retained it, but where it was less obvious, he was not so fortunate as to make the discovery. This circumstance alone affords sufficient evidence, that the Syriac version was not written by one of Christ’s immediate disciples.
We discover sometimes in the Syriac version, a Paronomasia, which was a favourite figure of the Oriental writers: for instance Acts ii. 30. where … is translated …, in reference to the following …, though the same Greek word, in other places, is rendered by … See also Cor. ix. 13. … and …
The mode adopted by the Syriac translator, with respect to the quotations from the Old Testament, deserves a more accurate inquiry than I have had leisure to make. But I have observed, 1. that he discovers sometimes an acquaintance with the Hebrew text: 2. that the quotations, except in the epistle to the Hebrews, correspond not to the text of the Syriac Old Testament in such a manner, as to justify the supposition that they were taken from it.
In the Curæ, in Act. Apost. § vi. p. 73, 74. I have taken notice of certain traces in the Syriac version, which lead to the supposition of its having been made by a native Jew. To the reasons alleged in that treatise, which I submit to the determination of my readers, I will add, that the Syriac translator appears to have been so well acquainted with Palestine, that he must at least have visited that country, for he has frequently restored geographical names in the Greek Testament to their true Oriental orthography. Capernaum is written in the Syriac Testament … , that is, the village of Nahum; Bethania, is written … ; Bethphage is written … , which perfectly corresponds to its situation, for … , in Arabic, signifies ‘a valley between two opposite mountains,’ an etymology which alone removes a contradiction which was supposed to exist between the New Testament and the Talmud^d ; and Bethesda, John v. 2. is written … , which is probably conformable to the derivation, whether we translate it ‘place of favour,’ or ‘place of the conflux of waters.’
[d: The Talmudists describe Bethphage as being close to Jerusalem, the Evangelists as being fifteen stadia distant from it. This is no contradiction, because Bethphage signifies the valley between Jerusalem and the mount of Olives, at well as the town which lay on the other side of the mount.]
The Syriac version therefore is the surest, and indeed the only guide, in discovering the etymology of geographical names, for the Arabic versions are too modern, and in other translations it was impossible to preserve the orthography of the East.
But this praise of the Syriac version I will not carry so far as to suppose that the translator was never mistaken, nor contend that his explanation of the garden and house Gethsemane (… or …), Matth. xxvii. 36. viz. … is to be preferred to another etymology, since an inhabitant of Edessa might be well acquainted with Judæa in general, without knowing the origin of the name of a summer-house in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Agreeably to the practice of the Syrians in translating from Greek authors, he has sometimes retained the Greek orthography, and for …, has used … though it was written in Hebrew … See the Syriac Grammar, §63. He has often followed the same rule with respect to the names of persons, of which …, 2 Cor. ii. 32. is an instance; and his etymology of Barabbas, Matth. xxvii. 16. …, is different from the Hebrew, as Jerome relates in his remark on this passage, that he is called in the Hebrew Gospel, filius magistri eorum, which would be .: but if the Syriac translator was mistaken, it was no dishonour to be ignorant in regard to the name of a malefactor.
Simon, in his Hist. Crit. des Vers, ch. xv. has treated of the use of the Syriac version, and has taken from it some useful extracts. John Fr. Bernd has written a treatise, entitled Schediasma de primariis versionis Syriacæ virtutibus, Halæ 1732, but the author was at that time not possessed of the Oriental literature, which he has displayed in some later writings: Gutbier, in his preface to his Syriac Testament, has also made remarks on this subject, but they are made for the most part without judgement.
Beside the critical use of the Syriac version, which will be examined in the following section, it leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient, for instance Matth. vi. 7. John xvi. 2. Rom. ix. 22. xiii. 3. and confirms some ancient rites, in which we are deeply interested, such as the celebration of Sunday, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And in discovering either the meaning of an unusual word, or the unusual meaning of a common word, where no assistance can be had from the Greek authors, the Syriac version may be of singular service, as the translator was probably acquainted with the language of common life, as well as with the language of books, and is at least of equal authority with a Greek lexicon of later ages.
Latin translations have been added to the Syriac version, in order to render its use more general, but as they are very erroneous, they cannot be consulted with safety, without attending at the same time to the Syriac text.
SECT. IX.
Critical use of the Syriac version.
THE chief advantage to be derived from the Syriac version is, in applying it to the purposes of criticism. Its high antiquity, and frequent deviation from the common reading, in passages of importance, must recommend the use of it to every critic, who in general will find himself rewarded for his trouble. Examples may be seen in Mill’s Prolegomena, § 1246-1257, and still more in the seventh section of the Curæ, where I have constantly marked the rarity of the quoted reading. Those readings, which I have marked as rare, are of two kinds; either such as are found only in one, two, or three manuscripts, of which I have given, in the eleventh section of the Curæ, an alphabetical list, as far as regards the Acts of the Apostles; or such as have been hitherto found in no manuscript, whether this arises from their not existing in any manuscript, or from a negligent examination of them, a misfortune which has likewise been the fate of the Syriac version.
The difference between the Syriac version, and the greatest part of the Greek manuscripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to suppose, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cases from the Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which were written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the produce of countries remote from Syria. They were probably taken neither from the same copy, nor from the same edition, and length of time must have rendered the difference still greater. But on the other hand, we must not suppose that every reading is genuine, where the Syriac version differs from the later manuscripts, because the ancient Greek copy, that was used by the Syriac translator, had undoubtedly its faults, the version itself has not descended unaltered to the present age, and our printed editions are extremely faulty. It is almost impossible therefore to give general rules on this subject, as it is often difficult to determine whether this difference must be ascribed to an error in the ancient Greek manuscript, from which the Syrian translated, to a corruption of the Syriac text, or a corruption of the Greek manuscripts that are now extant. This point being once determined, we should make a greater progress in the criticism of the New Testament.
In using the Syriac version, we must never forget that our present editions are very imperfect, and not conclude, that every reading of the Syriac printed text was the reading of the Greek manuscripts of the first century. Mark xiii. 37. we find …, but we cannot certainly infer from this expression, that the reading in the Greek manuscript, used by the Syriac translator, was …, since it is possible that the present Syriac word is an erratum for …, the reading of the Philoxenian version. Here though we may conjecture that the old Greek manuscript had the above reading, yet as the erratum in the Syriac is so easy, we can make no certain conclusion till it be ratified by the authority of some Greek manuscript. The critic must perform what the editors have neglected, and above all things endeavour to render the Syriac text as correct as possible. For this purpose, if he has no Syriac manuscripts in his possession, he may have recourse to the Persic version in the Gospels, and to the Erpenian Arabic version, in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, as recommended in my father’s treatise De var. lect. Nov. Test. caute colligendis, § 66. 72. 77. In the fifth and sixth sections of the Curæ, I have attempted to follow his example, but till we have more knowledge of the old Syriac manuscripts, we shall arrive at no certainty. In using the common editions of the Syriac Testament, those of Gutbier and Schaaf, the various readings printed at the end must always be examined, because they shew the difference between those and the more ancient editions, a caution which is the more necessary, as the later editors have had the imprudence to interpolate whole passages in the Syriac text, namely the beginning of John viii. Acts viii. 37. 1 John v. 7, &c.
…
the Codex Cantabrigiensis, which has a great affinity to the Syriac version….
===============
My response to Dr. Ehrman is below. How would you respond to him?
_Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)_ by Bart D. Ehrman (2009), 292pp. On 36, 37
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted…061173940/
Joseph is not Jesus’ father. But that creates an obvious problem. If Jesus is not a blood-relation to Joseph, why is it that Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ bloodline precisely through Joseph? This is a question that neither author answers: both accounts give a genealogy that can’t be the genealogy of Jesus, since his only bloodline goes through Mary, yet neither author provides her genealogy. …. Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23; also Matthew 1:16). ….
There are other problems. In … Matthew’s genealogy …. from the Babylonian disaster to the birth of Jesus, fourteen generations (1:17). Fourteen, fourteen, and fourteen-it is almost as if God had planned it this way. …. The problem is that the fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema doesn’t actually work. If you read through the names carefully, you’ll see that in the third set of fourteen there are in fact only thirteen generations.
////////////////////////////
Matthew 1:17 says there are 14, 14, 14 generations.
Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s genealogy mistakenly list 14, 14, 13 generations.
In Aramaic mss. of Matthew’s genealogy, with Mt 1:16’s “gbra” correctly translated as father/guardian, Matthew’s genealogy lists 14, 14, 14 generations.
Mary had a father/guardian named Joseph (plus a husband also called Joseph).
Jesus is a descendant of King David on his biological mother Mary’s side (per Mt’s genealogy), and on his step-dad Joseph’s side (per Lk’s genealogy).
===============
“I like the Greek, but the Aramaic is more interesting. Any retro-translation opens up options and possibilities”
transliterations + translations: Hebrews 7:1-2
The bottom line is that in the original Aramaic for Hebrews 7:1-2, “Mlki-Zdq” got expounded as the partially-similar “Mlka d’Kanutha,” while in contrast,
the Greek version has the transliteration “Melchisedek,” which it translates as the very-dissimilar “basileus dikaiosyne.”
Also, in the original Aramaic, “Mlk Shlim” was expounded as the largely similar “Mlka d’Shlma,” while in contrast,
the Greek version has the part-translation, part-transliteration “basileus Salem,” which it fully-translates as “basileus eirene.”
We start with some Aramaic vocabulary.
Mlki-Zdq — King-Righteous, i.e. “Righteous King,” or: “King (of) Righteousness” [could it be ‘my righteous king’?]
(Incidentally, “zadiqa” means “righteous/ just, a righteous/ just man,” and “Zaduqia” are Sadducees.)
Mlk-Shlim — king (of) peace
d’mlka — of the kings
Mlka-d’Kanutha — king of righteousness
Mlk-Shlim — king (of) peace
Mlka-d’Shlma — king of peace
Hebrews 7:1-2 (based on Etheridge + Khabouris, from dukhrana.com)
1. For this Mlki-Zdq is Mlk-Shlim, the priest of Allaha the Most High.
And he met Abraham when he returned from the slaughter d’mlka [of the kings], and blessed him.
2. And to him Abraham separated the tenth from everything that he had with him.
Now his name, being expounded, (is) the Mlka-d’Kanutha;
and again, Mlk-Shlim, which is, Mlka-d’Shlma.
Note how in the original Aramaic, there’s 6 instances of “mlk”/king, and 3 instances of words having the letters “shlm”/ peace, as the author of Hebrews expresses things slightly differently (in different Aramaic dialects?).
We now take a look at the Greek transliterations and translations of the passage.
Hebrews 7:1-2 (hybrid of DLNT + MOUNCE; the bracketed “his name” is the DLNT’s)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...OUNCE;DLNT
For this Melchisedek [Melchizedek], basileus-Salem [king _of_ Salem], priest _of_ the Most-High God, remains _a_ priest perpetually–
the _one_ having met Abraham returning from the defeat _of_ the basileus [kings] and having eulogeo [blessed] him;
_to_ whom also Abraham divided dekatos [_a_ tenth] from everything;
_who is_ first ([his name] hermeneuo [being translated]), basileus-dikaiosyne [king _of_ righteousness];
and then also basileus-Salem [king _of_ Salem], which is basileus-eirene [king _of_ peace];
transliterations of the Greek transliterations:
Melchisedek: 1 instance
Salem: 2 instances
transliterations of the Greek translations:
basileus (5 instances; translates the Aramaic mlk/ ‘king’)
dikaiosyne (translates the Aramaic d’kanutha/ ‘of righteousness’)
eirene (1 instance; translates the Aramaic shlma/ ‘peace’)
===============
“Luke actually does have an answer to this problem, not one that would satisfy modern genetics, but good enough for Luke: ὡς ἐνομίζετο. As was customarily thought. Joseph adopted Jesus according to custom/law (νόμος). That’s all that matters to him”
So in Mt’s geneology, Mary’s husband Joseph is the 14th?
“myself included, think Luke 1-2 may have been a later addition to Luke’s gospel”
Arguments for thinking that Luke 1-2 was “a later addition to Luke’s gospel”?
“I’m aware of a few Aramaic (and Greek) attempts make Matthew’s genealogy into that of Mary, and her (adopted) father also named Joseph, but they strain credulity”
What flaws do you see in the attempt I presented?
“Is everyone on the Internet crazy?”
No.
“And, if so”
Not applicable.
My response to Dr. Ehrman is below. How would you respond to him?
_Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)_ by Bart D. Ehrman (2009), 292pp., 51
3. _Why does Matthew quote the wrong prophet?_
When Matthew indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he notes (as by now we expect of him) that this was in fulfillment of Scripture: “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, And they took the thirty pieces of silver … and they gave them for the potter’s field” (Mathew 27:9-10). The problem is that this prophecy is not found in Jeremiah. It appears to be a loose quotation of Zechariah 11:3.
////////////////////////////
For Mt 27:9-10, Greek manuscripts have the erroneous addition that Jeremiah said a particular remark, when there’s no Old Testament evidence that Jeremiah said that. The Aramaic original leaves unspecified the name of the prophet, avoiding an unnecessary contradiction: (based on Younan) “Then the thing was fulfilled which was spoken of by the prophet who said, “I took the thirty (pieces) of silver, the price of the precious one which (those) from the sons of Israel agreed upon.”
Did Matt 27:9 originally have:
“Jeremiah”?
“I took”? “they took”?
Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatessaron:
lack the erroneous “Jeremiah”;
have “I took.”
Matthew 27:9 (Aramaic–>Dutch; using google translate–>English)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/
https://www.biblehub.com/hpbt/…..hew/27.htm
Then what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled when he said, “And I took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of the Precious One, which those of the sons of Israel had agreed to,
by the prophet – this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT, and TR reads, “through the prophet Jeremiah,” which is false, for the thirty pieces of silver are a prophecy of the prophet Zechariah (Zech 11:12). In Jer. 18: 1-3…. In Jer. 32:6-15
….
I took – this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: ‘they took’.
Diatessaron 51:13 (Aramaic–>Arabic–>English)
https://www.newadvent.org/fath…..100251.htm
Therein was fulfilled the saying in the prophet which said, I took thirty pieces of money, the price of the precious one, which was fixed by the children of Israel; and I paid them for the plain of the potter, as the Lord commanded me.
===============
“What flaws do you see in the attempt I presented?”
“Soon after the genealogy, Matthew has the angel Gabriel address Joseph, Mary’s betrothed, as ‘son of David,'”
So Mary’s husband Joseph _wasn’t_ a “son of David”?
“force meanings on the text that no one would ever imagine if they were not looking for a way to resolve such theological problems”
So the Aramaic ‘gbra’ _doesn’t_ mean father/guardian?
===============
“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Do you think Mark 7:26 originally had “Greek”?
Mark 7 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/7.htm
25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet.
26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
///////////////////
corruption in calling someone Greek at Mk 7:25-28, leading to a contradiction with Mt 15:21+
In Mark 7:25-28, the Aramaic Peshitta reads,
(based on Younan)
“For immediately a certain woman whose daughter had an unclean rukha [spirit] heard about him [Yeshua], and she came (and) fell before his feet. Now that woman was kanapta [a heathen/ pagan/ foreigner] from Phoenicia in Syria, and was entreating him to cast out the shada [shade/devil] from her daughter. . . . . even the dogs eat from under the tables the crumbs of the children.'”
Greek manuscripts erroneously say the woman was Greek. This sets up an unnecessary contradiction with Mt 15:21+, where she is called a Canaanite:
“And Yeshua went out from there and came to the border of Tsur and of Tsidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from those borders came out while crying and saying, ‘Have mercy on me mari [my lord], the Son of Dawid. My daughter is seriously vexed by a shada. . . . even the dogs eat from the crumbs which fall from the tables of their masters and live.'”
===============
“So the Aramaic ‘gbra’ _doesn’t_ mean father/guardian?”
“Sure, it could mean that”
“So Mary’s husband Joseph _wasn’t_ a ‘son of David’?”
“According to Mt 1,16.20 he was”
The Greek Mt 1:16 has a mistranslation from the original Aramaic.
According to Luke’s genealogy, Joseph the husband of Mary was a descendant of King David.
Therefore it was appropriate for an angel to call Joseph the husband of Mary a son of David.
“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Do you think Acts 8:27 originally said “eunuch”?
Acts 8:27 (Berean Literal)
https://biblehub.com/acts/8-27.htm
And having risen up, he went. And behold, an Ethiopian eunuch, a potentate of Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship.
////////////////////
mistranslation for Acts 8:27
The Greek manuscripts have a mistranslation for Acts 8:27, which when translated better reads:
(based on Younan)
“And he [i.e. Pileepos/ Philip] arose (and) went and met a certain mahaymina [believer] who had come from Cush, an official of Qandeq, the malkta [queen] of the Cushites, and he was an authority over all her treasures. And he had come to worship in Urishlim.”
Re: MHYMNA, it can mean either ‘believer’ or ‘eunuch’– or many similar things. The Greek versions mistranslate this as ‘eunuch’ instead of the more contextually correct ‘believer.’–Paul Younan.
The Ethiopian _believer_ was intending to worship in Jerusalem, presumably in the temple there– which eunuchs were prohibited from doing by Deut 23:2. Cf. Mt 19:12.
===============
“Matthew makes lots of changes to Mark’s text”
For example?
“I’m not aware of any variants among the Greek manuscript evidence”
Nor I.
A 600+ page PDF of Greek Mark textual variants has entries for 7:24 and 7:28, but nothing in-between.
“I don’t immediately accept your view that the change was made to be more politically correct”
I don’t know the motivation(s) if any behind the corruption of calling her Greek.
“the Peshitta variant doesn’t seem specific enough to necessitate another reading in Greek”
The Greek has a corruption.
The original Aramaic, and Tatian’s by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron, lack that corruption.
Arabic Diatesseron 20:48, 49
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/a…..ge_75.html
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/a…..ii.xx.html
But straightway a Canaanitish woman, whose daughter had an [48, 49] unclean spirit, heard of him. And that woman was a Gentile of Emesa of Syria. And she came out after him, crying out, and saying, Have mercy upon me, my Lord, thou [50] son of David; for my daughter is seized in an evil way by Satan.^9 [9: “Or, _the devil_] And he answered [Arabic, p. 81] her not a word. …
===============
“Adds an infancy narrative, adds major discourses, eg, the Sermon on the Mount, adds the keys of the Kingdom being given to Peter”
What leads you to think that Matthew started with Mark’s text, and added material, and made other changes to Mark’s text? (‘scholarly consensus’?)
“I don’t know the motivation(s) if any behind the corruption of calling her Greek”
“Then you have no reason not to consider it original and to call it a corruption”
Do you know any motivations behind any changes? If so, what’s a change for which you know the motivation(s)?
===============
“What leads you to think that Matthew started with Mark’s text, and added material, and made other changes”
“It makes the most sense when one considers the improvements to the language and style”
The Peshitta Mt’s Lord’s Prayer has more rhyming than the Peshitta Lk’s Lord’s Prayer, which has more rhyming than the rhyming-less Greek Lord’s Prayer. Can I thereby conclude that the prayer was first written down as rhyming-less, got improved to have mostly-rhyming, and then got further improved to have even-more rhyming?
“the direction of the theological changes”
What direction was that?
“critical scholars are almost unanimous in this judgment for over a century”
Names of 2 dissenters?
“sometimes its fairly obvious”
What’s a change for which you know the motivation(s)?
===============
“what you’re calling rhyming is based on rather inconsequential aspects of Semitic language suffixes”
Are you aware of any Hebrew versions of the Lord’s Prayer that have any rhyming?
If you were to translate the prayer from Greek into Hebrew, how much rhyming could you come up with?
“I’m losing patience with your basic questions about everything”
Nobody is forcing you to respond in any way to my “basic questions.”
“Johann Jakob Griesbach & William Farmer”
Thanks.
“Matthew’s shows a little more artistry, which is oftentimes a mark of secondary literary activity”
Do you consider the ‘Janus parallelism’ in Mt 13:31-32 and Song of Songs 2:12 “a mark of secondary literary activity”?
/////////////////////////
Janus Parallelism in Mt 13:31-32
He [Yeshua] spoke another mathla [parable] in figure to them and said,
“The kingdom of heaven is likened to a grain of mustard seed
that a man took (and) sowed in his field.
And it is smaller than all the small seeds,
but when it grows it is greater than all the small herbs,
and becomes a tree
so that the birds [or: blossoms/flowers]
of heaven come (and) nest in its branches.”
The Aramaic word rendered ‘birds’ can also mean blossoms/flowers.
Hence, one way to read the poem would be to focus on the plant aspects:
seed – sowed in field – seeds – grows – herbs – tree – blossoms/flowers – in branches.
Another way to read the poem would be to focus on the bird aspects:
tree – birds of heaven – nest in branches.
Cyrus Gordon located a Janus parallelism in the Song of Songs 2:12, where the word for “pruning” can also mean “singing.”
Song of Songs 2:12 (NIV), my bracket
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV
Flowers appear on the earth;
the season of singing [or: pruning] has come,
the cooing of doves
is heard in our land.
Here are two possible ways of focusing on certain aspects of the poem:
flowers – earth – season – pruning – land.
____________ – season – singing – cooing – heard.
===============
http://aramaicnt.org/articles/…..a-primacy/
It’s only until around the turn of the third century we start seeing examples of /n-/ in the Imperfect regularly mixed in with /y-/, and by about the 4th century it had completely replaced /y-/ as the preferred prefix with not a single further documented example. By the dawn of the golden age of Classical Syriac literature (around the 5th century) /y-/ was absolutely nowhere to be found.
In other words the Peshitta, at the earliest, represents fourth century Syriac.
It cannot be from the first or second centuries AD as some proponents claim.
That sounds to me like saying that this cannot be from the 1600s:
‘And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus:
for he shall save his people from their sins.’
1611 KJV, Mt 1:21
https://www.kingjamesbibleonli…..Chapter-1/
And she shall bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his Name Iesus:
for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.
===============
“not a common word at all. The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac word”
Could it be slang?
http://aramaicnt.org/articles/…..a-primacy/
The Greek tradition says “Rabbouni” where the Peshitta tradition says “Rabbouli”. “Rabbouni” could easily come from rbwny rabuni which means “my teacher” or “my master” in Jewish dialects of Aramaic; however, “Rabouli” is not a common word at all. The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac word that means “head shepherd,” but the form “Rabouli” is not attested in any contemporary dialects to Jesus. It is not attested in Hebrew, either.
Second, they both claim that this word is “Hebrew,” rather than Aramaic. This is not so much of a problem in the Greek, as Ἑβραϊστί is commonly used to describe words of both Hebrew and Aramaic origins (in a sense it’s used as “the Jewish language”); however, in the Syriac Peshitta, it is only really used to describe Hebrew words….
So all these passages translated from Aramaic and mentioning ‘Hebrew’ are not in any way referring to Aramaic, but rather refer to Hebrew and only Hebrew?:
APNT
https://aramaicdb.lightofword……ord-search
Luk 23:38 And there was also an inscription that was written over him in Greek and Latin and Hebrew: “This is the king of the Judeans.”
Joh 5:2 Now there was in Jerusalem there a certain pool of baptizing, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, and it had five porches in it.
Joh 19:13 Now when Pilate heard this saying, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judgment seat in a place that is called “The Pavement of Stones,” but in Hebrew is called Gabbatha.
Joh 19:17 bearing his cross, to a place that was called ‘The Skull,’ but in Hebrew is called Golgotha,
Joh 19:20 And many of the Judeans read this board, because the place at which Jesus was crucified was near to the city and it was written in Hebrew and in Greek and in Latin.
Joh 20:16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” And she turned around and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbuli,” which means Teacher.
Act 21:40 And when he allowed him, Paul stood on the stairs and was motioning to them with his hand. And when they quieted down, he spoke with them in Hebrew and said to them,
Act 22:2 And when they heard that he was speaking with them in Hebrew, they quieted down more.
Act 26:14 And we all fell on the ground. And I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
===============
http://aramaicnt.org/articles/…..a-primacy/
Now within the Peshitta Primacy movement, the argument goes that in the Syriac Peshitta, the word for “husband” or gabrA) gavrā can also mean “guardian,” and therefore the Joseph listed here is Mary’s father or legal guardian. This would make Mary the next generation on the list, and round out the third set of 14 evenly.
Unfortunately gavrā has no such meaning.
So the g-b-r-a here doesn’t and can’t mean ‘fathers’?:
Matthew 7:9 (modified Younan)
https://www.dukhrana.com/peshi…../index.php
https://aramaicdb.lightofword……ear-search
Or whom among you g-b-r-a,
that of him his son asks bread,
why would hold out to him a rock?
===============
“It is generally thought that these miracles may have been seen as too pedestrian, perhaps even”
It sounds like you don’t know the motivations behind both Matthew and Luke removing the aforementioned Mark material.
“For Matthew, it is much more important to include the content of Jesus’ authoritative teaching, and not merely that his authority is shown in his miracles….
This redaction is not so clear. One idea: I suspect Matthew’s community is more insular (eg, Jesus telling his disciples not to go among the gentiles and Samaritans), perhaps a little less likely to”
It sounds like you don’t know the motivations behind Matthew removing the aforementioned Mark material.
===============
“Can you point to a single usage of gavra for an adoptive guardian of someone?”
No. I’m also not that familiar with Aramaic.
In ancient Hebrew, what word was used for a step-father? (‘none, because the ancient Israelites didn’t have any step-fathers’? ‘the same word they used for a biological father’?)
In ancient Arabic, what word was used for a step-father? (‘the same word they used for a biological father’?)
===============
“Would you like to look at what some excellent scholars have to say about this?”
Not really.
“What isn’t clear to you?”
Numerous things.
But it’s clear to me that you don’t know the motivations behind Matthew removing the aforementioned Mark material, nor do you know the motivations behind Matthew and Luke removing the aforementioned Mark material.
Some people believe Matthew and Luke started with Mark’s material and built on it.
“I don’t know the motivation(s) if any behind the corruption of calling her Greek”
“Then you have no reason not to consider it original and to call it a corruption”
========================
“not a common word at all. The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac word”
“Could it be slang?”
“Irrelevant. It would still be unattested… slang”
It’s not “irrelevant” to the allegation that “The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac word.”
“It would still be… anachronistic slang”
I don’t see how it would be “anachronistic.” I imagine it can take a while for a slang term to become widespread.
“‘Rabouli’ is not attested in any contemporary dialects of Jesus”
Does “not attested” mean, ‘it has not yet been found in an ancient document or inscription other than in the Peshitta’?
If the Greek NT has a word that’s “not attested in any contemporary dialects of Jesus,” would that mean that the NT wasn’t originally written in Greek?
“Wasn’t your comparison to the King James Version meant to imply that”
No. I’m merely stating what appears to me to be the case.
http://aramaicnt.org/articles/…..a-primacy/
It’s only until around the turn of the third century we start seeing examples of /n-/ in the Imperfect regularly mixed in with /y-/, and by about the 4th century it had completely replaced /y-/ as the preferred prefix with not a single further documented example. By the dawn of the golden age of Classical Syriac literature (around the 5th century) /y-/ was absolutely nowhere to be found.
In other words the Peshitta, at the earliest, represents fourth century Syriac.
It cannot be from the first or second centuries AD as some proponents claim.
That sounds to me like saying that this cannot be from the 1600s:
‘And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus:
for he shall save his people from their sins.’
1611 KJV, Mt 1:21
https://www.kingjamesbibleonli…..Chapter-1/
And she shall bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his Name Iesus:
for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.
===============
“said opinion is contrary to scholars who are very well versed in Aramaic”
What if any “scholars who are very well versed in Aramaic” thought part of the NT was originally written in Aramaic? (‘none’?)
“I’m not sure such a concept existed”
The concept of ‘step-father’ exists in English today.
If I pointed to a step-father, and asked an ancient Hebrew speaker what word she’d use to describe him, what word would she use? (the same word she used for a biological father?)
If I pointed to a step-father, and asked an ancient Arabic speaker what word she’d use to describe him, what word would she use? (the same word she used for a biological father?)
===============
“sometimes the motivations are fairly obvious”
What’s an instance where “the motivations are fairly obvious”?
===============
“be better for you to become more familiar with Aramaic”
Agreed.
“the hypothetical time-machine argument”
It sounds like you don’t know if ancient Israelites and ancient Arabic speakers did or didn’t have a word for ‘step-father’ distinct from ‘father.’
“instance where ‘the motivations are fairly obvious’?”
“Mk 4,1 vs Mt 13,1. You’ll need to read Greek to understand this one. Do you know Greek?”
No.
“Mk 10,35-40 vs Mt 20,20-23. Matthew blames the request of James and John on their mother rather than allow these leaders in the movement appear to have made the arrogant request themselves”
Per Matthew, Jesus’ other students blamed not the mother for the audacious request, but rather James and John– see below.
Do you know the motivation(s) behind Luke leaving out any mention of the request and the other students’ indignation at the 2 brothers? (‘no motivations– Luke completely overlooked Mark’s account of the request’?)
Matthew 20 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/20.htm
20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 “What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”
22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
=====================
"it’s just a forced reading on the text"
I don't consider interpreting the g-b-r-a here as 'fathers' a "forced reading on the text":
Matthew 7:9 (modified Younan)
https://www.dukhrana.com/
Or whom among you g-b-r-a,
that of him his son asks bread,
why would hold out to him a rock?
"those who do not want to admit that there might be contradictions or mistakes in their Bible"
The Greek NT calls the Syro-Phonecian woman a Greek, contradicting itself. Some people don't like that contradiction in the Greek NT. Others are perfectly OK with their translated-into-Greek NT's contradictions and mistranslations and added glosses.
"Matthew’s version tends to deflect the blame on the mother for the readers"
Readers are told that the other students blamed James and John.
"Jesus while responding to the mother, is also speaking directly James and John, without noting the change"
Readers can tell that James and John respond to Jesus' question.
"motivation(s) behind Luke leaving out any mention of the request and the other students' indignation at the 2 brothers?"
"Possibly he left this part out for the same reason that Matthew ameliorates the role of James and John"
So possibly Luke tried to present James and John in the best possible light?
Luke 9
https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/9.htm
51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.
52 And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him;
53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem.
54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them.
Evidence that the Peshitta NT is a translation?
===============
“Peshitta sometimes includes paraphrases… which are not otherwise found in the Greek and Latin manuscript traditions”
2 examples from the Peshitta New Testament?
The Greek translation of the Aramaic contains mistranslations and at-least 10 glosses.
===============
“my 1989 edition of the Alands’ textbook on NT text criticism and found this (p 197):
‘The very presence of Old Syriac readings in the Peshitta”
2 examples?
===============
What city name does the Old Syriac have in Acts xxi. 7?
Does the Old Syriac have heathen/ pagan anywhere in the NT?
Greek mss. have ‘politically-correct’ references to non-Judeans, and have a particular place’s more-current name;
in contrast, the Aramaic Peshitta has ‘politically-_in_correct’ references to non-Judeans, and has a particular place’s antiquated name.
“kh-n-p-th-a” — godless, gentile, heathen, foreigner, profane.
Lexeme 1:1096 appears in
Matthew 6:7, 10:5, 18:17
Mark 7:26
John 7:35
Acts 18:4, 18:17
1Cor 5:1, 10:20, 10:27, 12:2
1Peter 4:3
Norton, William. 1889. _A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshito-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, With an Introduction on the Peshito-Syriac Text, and the Revised Greek Text of 1881_ (London: W.K. Bloom), ~140pp. What’s below is from a Google books copy; the book is also at
https://archive.org/details/tr…..neng00nort
In the Introduction, pages l – li:
In the names of places, the Peshito shows the same independence of the Greek. . . . . in Acts xxi. 7, the Gk. has, Ptolemais; the Syriac has, Acu.
Mr. Jer. Jones, in his work on the Canon, 1798, contends that the use of the name Acu, for Ptolemais, is a decisive proof that the Peshito must have been made not far in time from A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. (vol. i. p. 103.) He says that the most ancient name of this place among the Israelites was Aco, or Acco, Judges i.31; that this name was afterwards changed to Ptolemais; that some say it had its new name from Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B.C. He says it is certain that the old name Aco, was antiquated and out of use in the time of the Romans, and that the use of the old name Acu, in the Peshito, can be accounted for in no other way, but by supposing that the persons for whom the version was made were more acquainted with it, than with the new name Ptolemais; that upon any other supposition it would have been absurd for him to have used Acu. He says, that until the destruction of Jerusalem, one may suppose that the Jews may have retained the old name Aco still, out of fondness for its antiquity; but, he says,
“how they, or any other part of Syria, could, after the Roman conquest, call it by a name different from the Romans, seems to me impossible to conceive. . . To suppose, therefore, that this translation, in which we meet with this old name, instead of the new one, was made at any great distance of time after the destruction of Jerusalem, is to suppose the translator to have substituted an antiquated name known to but few, for a name well known to all” (pp. 104, 105.)
Mr. Jones says that a similar proof that the Peshito cannot have been made much after A.D. 70, is found in the fact that the Peshito often calls the Gentiles, as the Jews were accustomed to do, _profane persons_, where the Greek calls them _the nations_, that is, the Gentiles. The Peshito calls them profane, in Matt. vi.7; x.5; xviii.17; Mark vii.26; John vii.35; Acts xviii.4, 17; 1 Cor. v.1; x.20, 27; xii.2; 1 Pet. iv.3. The expression is used, therefore, throughout the Peshito. Mr. Jones says, that it shows that the writer was a Jew, for no other person would have called all the world profane; and that after the destruction of the temple, all Hebrew Christians must have seen that other nations were not to be reckoned unclean and profane in the Jewish sense, and that therefore this version must have been made either before, or soon after, A.D. 70. (On Canon, Vol. i., pp. 106-110.)
===============
How do you account for the geographical details present in the Peshitta, but lacking in Greek mss.?
What letters are had in the Old Syriac for these geographical locations?
Capernaum. Bethania. Bethphage. Bethesda in John v.2.
Johann David Michaelis, _Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (and a Dissertation on the origin and composition of the three first gospels)_ as translated by Herbert Marsh, 4 vols., vol. 2 part 1 (1802), 43-44
https://books.google.com/books…..38;pg=PA39
In the Curæ, in Act. Apost. § vi. p. 73, 74. I have taken notice of certain traces in the Syriac version, which lead to the supposition of its having been made by a native Jew. To the reasons alleged in that treatise, which I submit to the determination of my readers, I will add, that the Syriac translator appears to have been so well acquainted with Palestine, that he must at least have visited that country, for he has frequently restored geographical names in the Greek Testament to their true Oriental orthography. Capernaum is written in the Syriac Testament … , that is, the village of Nahum; Bethania, is written … ; Bethphage is written … , which perfectly corresponds to its situation, for … , in Arabic, signifies ‘a valley between two opposite mountains,’ an etymology which alone removes a contradiction which was supposed to exist between the New Testament and the Talmud ; and Bethesda, John v.2. is written … , which is probably conformable to the derivation, whether we translate it ‘place of favour,’ or ‘place of the conflux of waters.’ The Syriac version therefore is the surest, and indeed the only guide, in discovering the etymology of geographical names, for the Arabic versions are too modern, and in other translations it was impossible to preserve the orthography of the East.
===============
“The Old Syriac is only extant in two manuscripts of the gospels. No Acts or letters”
C = Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus
S = Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus
— per _The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 1, Matthew and Mark) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), 381pp. by E. Jan Wilson, xv
on 48
Mt 6:7
S6.7 “saying vain things like the heathen, who”
C6.7 “babbling like the hypocrites, for they”
on 78
Mt 10:5
S10.5 “walk in the way of gentiles”
No mention of C.
on 168
Mt 18:17
S18.17 “consider him like a heathen”
C18.17 “consider him like a heathen”
on 310
Mark 7:26
S7.26 “That woman was a widow from the area of Tyre of Phoenicia, and she pleaded with him to cast the spirit out of her daughter.”
No mention of C.
_The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 2, Luke and John) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), with pages numbered 384-850, by E. Jan Wilson
https://www.amazon.com/Old-Syriac-Gospel...931956189/
on 750
John 7:35
"going then to teach the descendents of the Arameans" -- both Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus and Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus
“there are some who still believe the Peshitta is older than the current general consensus of critical scholars”
According to “the current general consensus of critical scholars,” what is the age of the NT Peshitta? And from what was it translated?
“It is generally held that the Syriac translation of the Jewish scriptures was made directly from the Hebrew”
and the Aramaic e.g. in Daniel– I agree for the OT.
“and perhaps this influenced translation of New Testament books as well. Perhaps this, or other semitic cultural influences, introduced some of these apparently archaic usages into the Syriac translations of New Testament books as well”
===============
When quoting Isaiah 42:2, from where did the Greek Matthew 12:19 get “quarrel”?
(the Masoretic? the LXX? the Peshitta Matthew 12:19?)
_The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 1, Matthew and Mark) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), 381pp. by E. Jan Wilson, lvi
Matt. 12:19…. The word used in the Greek text is ερισει “quarrel,” which cannot have been taken either from the Hebrew Masoretic text (which has the word …), nor from the LXX (which has ανησει)….
Matthew 12:19 (Berean Literal Bible)
https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-19.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/matt…../12-19.htm
He will not quarrel [Greek: οὐκ/ouk/not ἐρίσει/ erisei/ will He quarrel] nor will he cry out;
nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.
Isaiah 42:2 interlinear
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/42-2.htm
Not יִצְעַ֖ק/yiṣ-‘aq/He-will-cry-out nor יִשָּׂ֑א/yiś-śā/raise-[His-voice]
nor cause to be heard in the street His voice
Isaiah 42:2 (JPS Tanakh 1917)
https://biblehub.com/jps/isaiah/42.htm
He shall not cry, nor lift up,
Nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
Isaiah 42:2 (HCSB)
https://biblehub.com/hcsb/isaiah/42.htm
He will not cry out or shout
or make His voice heard in the streets.
Isaiah 42:2 (Brenton Septuagint)
https://biblehub.com/sep/isaiah/42.htm
He shall not cry, nor lift up _his voice_,
nor shall his voice be heard without.
Isaiah 42:2 (LXX)
οὐ κεκράξεται οὐδὲ ἀνήσει,
οὐδὲ ἀκουσθήσεται ἔξω ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ.
Isaiah 42:2 (Peshitta Tanakh, Lamsa)
http://superbook.org/LAMSA/ISA/isa42.htm
He shall not cry, nor make a sound,
nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
Isaiah 42:2, in _Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English_, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich (1999), 649pp., 337
He will not cry out or raise his voice
or make it heard in the street.
Matthew 12:19
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) He shall not contend nor cry,
And no man shall hear his voice in the street.
(Murdock) He shall not contend, nor be clamorous,
nor shall any one hear his voice in the market-place.
(Lamsa) He will not argue, nor will he cry aloud;
and no man will hear his voice in the street.
(KJV) He shall not strive, nor cry;
neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
ḥry vb. Gt to maintain a position
C View a KWIC
1 to urge to hold fast to a position Syr. IS 48:14 .
2 to prepare (?) Syr. P Job10:17 ….
Gt View a KWIC
1 to cling tightly, get stuck Syr. EphFid 81:12.3…. if the boat got stuck the waves broke it up. P Acts27:41 …. the ship tried to go into a high spot between two sea-depths, but got stuck. (a) fig. : to be eager for something Syr. JulSok 31(12):10 …. nor was he eager to enter once he had learned our desire.
2 fig.: to contend, disagree strongly CPA, Syr. AphDem5.101:4 …. P Is1:20 …. P Acts12:15 ….
while she was insisting that it was thus. (a) …. to litigate Syr. P Gn49:23 : ….
Derivatives:
…. adj. contentious …. n.f. litigiousness …. n.m. controversy …. n.f. contentiousness …. adj. contentious …. adv. contentiously …. n.f. squabble
===============
“predominant opinion is early fifth century”
Evidence/ arguments for that date for the NT Peshitta?
“The Peshitta is generally thought to be a revision of the Old Syriac and the Diatesseron for the gospels”
I find it hard to believe that anybody seriously thinks that the Diatesseron was untangled to come up with the Peshitta’s 4 gospels.
Evidence for thinking that the Peshitta is:
“a revision of the Old Syriac”?
“a revision of… the Diatesseron”?
“and translation from Greek manuscripts for most of the rest of the New Testament”
What language do you think Revelation was originally written in? (Greek?)
“Some parts of the New Testament were still left out until a later version in the early sixth century (eg, Philoxenos)”
Which parts “were still left out”?
===============
“Matthew 12:19 get ‘quarrel’”
“How would one prove that the Peshitta did not get it from the Greek?”
Maybe I can come up with some arguments.
‘Quarrel’ might have appeared first in:
Aramaic and then Greek,
Greek and then Aramaic,
some other language and then Greek and then Aramaic,
some other language and then Aramaic and then Greek.
In the Aramaic, Mt’s rendition of the Lord’s Prayer has much rhyming. The Aramaic Lk’s version has less rhyming. I didn’t notice any rhyming in the Greek nor a Hebrew version.
Do you think that it’s possible that someone translated a non-rhyming Greek Lord’s Prayer into a rhyming Aramaic Lord’s Prayer?
What language do you think the lord’s prayer was originally in?
A transliteration of the Aramaic Mt 6:9-13:
Ah-woon ** our Father
d’wash-may-ya ** in heaven
============================
nith-qad-dash shmakh ** holy be Your name
teh’-theh’ ** come
mal-koo-thakh ** Your kingdom
neh-weh ** be done
tsow-ya-nakh ** Your will
============================
ay-kan-na ** as
d’wash-may-ya ** in heaven
ap b’ar-aa ** so on earth.
11 ============================
haw lan ** give us
lakh-ma ** the bread
d’son-qa-nan ** of our need
yo-ma-na ** this day
12 ============================
ow’shwoq lan ** and forgive us
khow-beyn ** our offences
ay-kan-na d’ap kha-nan ** as also we
shwa-qan ** have forgiven
l’khay-ya-wen ** those who have offended us
13 ============================
ow’la ** and not
ta’-lan ** bring us
l’nis-you-na ** into trial
al-la pas-san ** but deliver us
min bee-sha ** from the evil one
============================
modt-dtil d’dee-lak ** for of yours
hee mal-koo-tha ** is the Kingdom
ow’khay-la ** and the power
ow’tish-bokh-tha ** and the glory
l’al-um ail-meen. ** to the age (of) ages, or: to the world (of) worlds
Mt 6:10’s “as” uses the letters “aikna,” while Lk 11:2’s “as” uses “aik.”
Also, Mt 6:11 uses “yomna”– this day, daily– while Lk 11:3 instead uses “klium”– every day, daily.
Hence, in at least 2 places, the Luke version means the same, but has less-perfect rhyming compared with the Matthew version.
===============================
“read some of the scholarly literature supporting this view”
I looked at the Peshitta chapter in
Arthur Voobus, _Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac_ (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Subsidia Tome 3) (1951), 219pp., 46-60
and didn’t notice any good arguments for an “early fifth century” date for the NT Peshitta.
Perhaps another item in
https://evangelicaltextualcrit…..raphy.html
would have something.
“hard to believe that anybody seriously thinks that the Diatesseron was untangled to come up with the Peshitta’s 4 gospels”
“Me too”
What do you think came first: Tatian’s Diatesseron in Aramaic, or the Peshitta’s 4 gospels?
“Probably 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation”
How come those ‘Western Five’ were left out of the NT Peshitta? (the canon got closed before any of those books gained acceptance?)
===============
“Vööbus… is not a believer in Peshitta primacy. He believes it is a translation from the Greek, as did Michaelis”
On what basis/ grounds? (“scholarly consensus”?)
“I do have a healthy respect for a scholarly consensus unless and until I hear good arguments against it”
If portions of the Greek NT had syntactical features similar to the LXX’s ‘translation Greek,’ would that be evidence that those Greek NT passages were translated from a semitic language?
“I am not a specialist in Syriac versions of the New Testament”
Are you a specialist in any NT fields, and if so, which?
“That’s your argument for the version of Isaiah 42,2 quoted by Mt 12,19 first appearing in an Aramaic original of Matthew’s gospel and only subsequently being translated into a Greek version?”
Not that I know of.
“There’s no debate about whether or not Jesus spoke Aramaic”
Is there any debate about what language his 12 students: spoke? wrote in?
“That the prayer can thus be retro-translated into a simple but elegant Aramaic or Hebrew version should not be surprising”
Which Lord’s Prayer do you consider more elegant:
the Greek version, or the Aramaic version?
===============
“his book. What does he say?”
I looked thru Vööbus’s book, and just now read the concluding, summarizing chapter “New Light on Old Textual Problems,” and didn’t see any arguments for any of the Aramaic versions being derived from Greek.
While looking for a Mark item, I came across
Johann David Michaelis, _Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (and a Dissertation on the origin and composition of the three first gospels)_ as translated by Herbert Marsh, 4 vols., vol. 2 part 1 (1802), 40+
https://books.google.com/books…..38;pg=PA39
The Peshito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read; that of Luther, though in some respects inferior to his translation of the Old Testament, holding the second rank. Of all the Syriac authors, with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephrem and BarHebræus, its language is the most elegant and pure, not loaded with foreign words, like the Philoxenian version, and other later writings, and discovers the hand of a master, in rendering those passages, where the two idioms deviate from each other. It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original; and this excellence of style must be ascribed to its antiquity, and to its being written in a city that was the residence of Syrian kings. See Rom. ix. 20. xiii. 1. Heb. vii. 3. 8. Acts v. 37. xix. 39. xxii. 3. xxvii. 3. compared with the first section of the Curæ in Act. Apost. Syr. where I have pointed out the excellent manner in which the the Syriac translator has rendered the Greek phrases, and in the third and sixth section of the Curæ other examples are quoted.
It is true that the Syriac version, like all human productions, is not destitute of faults, and, what is not to be regarded as a blemish, differs frequently from the modern modes of explanation : but I know of none that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence, in cases of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray a weakness and ignorance in the translator; and though in many other translations the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must be ever read with profound veneration.
Several explanations that were necessary for a Greek reader are omitted in the Syriac version, as being useless to a native Syrian: for instance, those of Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani, Matth. xxvii. 46. Ephphatha, Mark vii. 34. Siloam, John ix. 7. Tabitha, Acts ix. 36. Talitha kumi, Mark v. 41. Corban, Mark vii. 11. and Messias, John iv. 25. However, it is uncertain whether this omission is to be attributed to the ancient translator, or to subsequent transcribers. See the Curæ, p. 60.
The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine is so great, as to justify in some respects the assertion, that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spake. The dialect of Jerusalem was East-Aramæan, or, as we call it, Chaldee, and according to this dialect are written the Aramæan words that are found in the Greek Testament, for instance Acts i. 19. 1 Cor. xvi. 22. The Syriac New Testament is written in the same language, but in a different dialect. In Galilee, though West-Aramæan was spoken, that is the dialect of Syria on this side the Euphrates, and of Mesopotamia, yet it was extremely corrupted, as may be gathered from the writings of the Sabii. The Syriac New Testament was certainly not written in this corrupt dialect, but in the purest Mesopotamian: and it is probable that Christ, though educated at Nazareth, used not the dialect of that country, but that of Judæa, which was spoken by Joseph and Mary: at least … and other Aramæan expressions, are not Galilæan but pure Chaldee. The difference between the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode of pronouncing, and if a proper use had been made of this advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages would be made clear, if the words were still on record which Jesus spake with his disciples in the Aramæan language, whether the dialect be called Syriac or Chaldee. But the translator appears not to have been fortunate in rendering passages of this nature, of which I will produce a single instance, Matth. xxviii. 1. … If this had been translated …, every Syrian would have immediately understood it, and it would have naturally led to the explanation that I have given of it in the fifth section of the fourth chapter. But it is translated …, where he has preserved only one half of the Aramæan idiom: and I have frequently observed that, where it is almost unavoidable to render a Syriasm of the original by the same turn of phrase in the version, the translator has retained it, but where it was less obvious, he was not so fortunate as to make the discovery. This circumstance alone affords sufficient evidence, that the Syriac version was not written by one of Christ’s immediate disciples.
We discover sometimes in the Syriac version, a Paronomasia, which was a favourite figure of the Oriental writers: for instance Acts ii. 30. where … is translated …, in reference to the following …, though the same Greek word, in other places, is rendered by … See also Cor. ix. 13. … and …
The mode adopted by the Syriac translator, with respect to the quotations from the Old Testament, deserves a more accurate inquiry than I have had leisure to make. But I have observed, 1. that he discovers sometimes an acquaintance with the Hebrew text: 2. that the quotations, except in the epistle to the Hebrews, correspond not to the text of the Syriac Old Testament in such a manner, as to justify the supposition that they were taken from it.
In the Curæ, in Act. Apost. § vi. p. 73, 74. I have taken notice of certain traces in the Syriac version, which lead to the supposition of its having been made by a native Jew. To the reasons alleged in that treatise, which I submit to the determination of my readers, I will add, that the Syriac translator appears to have been so well acquainted with Palestine, that he must at least have visited that country, for he has frequently restored geographical names in the Greek Testament to their true Oriental orthography. Capernaum is written in the Syriac Testament … , that is, the village of Nahum; Bethania, is written … ; Bethphage is written … , which perfectly corresponds to its situation, for … , in Arabic, signifies ‘a valley between two opposite mountains,’ an etymology which alone removes a contradiction which was supposed to exist between the New Testament and the Talmud^d ; and Bethesda, John v. 2. is written … , which is probably conformable to the derivation, whether we translate it ‘place of favour,’ or ‘place of the conflux of waters.’
[d: The Talmudists describe Bethphage as being close to Jerusalem, the Evangelists as being fifteen stadia distant from it. This is no contradiction, because Bethphage signifies the valley between Jerusalem and the mount of Olives, at well as the town which lay on the other side of the mount.]
The Syriac version therefore is the surest, and indeed the only guide, in discovering the etymology of geographical names, for the Arabic versions are too modern, and in other translations it was impossible to preserve the orthography of the East.
But this praise of the Syriac version I will not carry so far as to suppose that the translator was never mistaken, nor contend that his explanation of the garden and house Gethsemane (… or …), Matth. xxvii. 36. viz. … is to be preferred to another etymology, since an inhabitant of Edessa might be well acquainted with Judæa in general, without knowing the origin of the name of a summer-house in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Agreeably to the practice of the Syrians in translating from Greek authors, he has sometimes retained the Greek orthography, and for …, has used … though it was written in Hebrew … See the Syriac Grammar, §63. He has often followed the same rule with respect to the names of persons, of which …, 2 Cor. ii. 32. is an instance; and his etymology of Barabbas, Matth. xxvii. 16. …, is different from the Hebrew, as Jerome relates in his remark on this passage, that he is called in the Hebrew Gospel, filius magistri eorum, which would be .: but if the Syriac translator was mistaken, it was no dishonour to be ignorant in regard to the name of a malefactor.
Simon, in his Hist. Crit. des Vers, ch. xv. has treated of the use of the Syriac version, and has taken from it some useful extracts. John Fr. Bernd has written a treatise, entitled Schediasma de primariis versionis Syriacæ virtutibus, Halæ 1732, but the author was at that time not possessed of the Oriental literature, which he has displayed in some later writings: Gutbier, in his preface to his Syriac Testament, has also made remarks on this subject, but they are made for the most part without judgement.
Beside the critical use of the Syriac version, which will be examined in the following section, it leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient, for instance Matth. vi. 7. John xvi. 2. Rom. ix. 22. xiii. 3. and confirms some ancient rites, in which we are deeply interested, such as the celebration of Sunday, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And in discovering either the meaning of an unusual word, or the unusual meaning of a common word, where no assistance can be had from the Greek authors, the Syriac version may be of singular service, as the translator was probably acquainted with the language of common life, as well as with the language of books, and is at least of equal authority with a Greek lexicon of later ages.
Latin translations have been added to the Syriac version, in order to render its use more general, but as they are very erroneous, they cannot be consulted with safety, without attending at the same time to the Syriac text.
SECT. IX.
Critical use of the Syriac version.
THE chief advantage to be derived from the Syriac version is, in applying it to the purposes of criticism. Its high antiquity, and frequent deviation from the common reading, in passages of importance, must recommend the use of it to every critic, who in general will find himself rewarded for his trouble. Examples may be seen in Mill’s Prolegomena, § 1246-1257, and still more in the seventh section of the Curæ, where I have constantly marked the rarity of the quoted reading. Those readings, which I have marked as rare, are of two kinds; either such as are found only in one, two, or three manuscripts, of which I have given, in the eleventh section of the Curæ, an alphabetical list, as far as regards the Acts of the Apostles; or such as have been hitherto found in no manuscript, whether this arises from their not existing in any manuscript, or from a negligent examination of them, a misfortune which has likewise been the fate of the Syriac version.
The difference between the Syriac version, and the greatest part of the Greek manuscripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to suppose, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cases from the Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which were written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the produce of countries remote from Syria. They were probably taken neither from the same copy, nor from the same edition, and length of time must have rendered the difference still greater. But on the other hand, we must not suppose that every reading is genuine, where the Syriac version differs from the later manuscripts, because the ancient Greek copy, that was used by the Syriac translator, had undoubtedly its faults, the version itself has not descended unaltered to the present age, and our printed editions are extremely faulty. It is almost impossible therefore to give general rules on this subject, as it is often difficult to determine whether this difference must be ascribed to an error in the ancient Greek manuscript, from which the Syrian translated, to a corruption of the Syriac text, or a corruption of the Greek manuscripts that are now extant. This point being once determined, we should make a greater progress in the criticism of the New Testament.
In using the Syriac version, we must never forget that our present editions are very imperfect, and not conclude, that every reading of the Syriac printed text was the reading of the Greek manuscripts of the first century. Mark xiii. 37. we find …, but we cannot certainly infer from this expression, that the reading in the Greek manuscript, used by the Syriac translator, was …, since it is possible that the present Syriac word is an erratum for …, the reading of the Philoxenian version. Here though we may conjecture that the old Greek manuscript had the above reading, yet as the erratum in the Syriac is so easy, we can make no certain conclusion till it be ratified by the authority of some Greek manuscript. The critic must perform what the editors have neglected, and above all things endeavour to render the Syriac text as correct as possible. For this purpose, if he has no Syriac manuscripts in his possession, he may have recourse to the Persic version in the Gospels, and to the Erpenian Arabic version, in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, as recommended in my father’s treatise De var. lect. Nov. Test. caute colligendis, § 66. 72. 77. In the fifth and sixth sections of the Curæ, I have attempted to follow his example, but till we have more knowledge of the old Syriac manuscripts, we shall arrive at no certainty. In using the common editions of the Syriac Testament, those of Gutbier and Schaaf, the various readings printed at the end must always be examined, because they shew the difference between those and the more ancient editions, a caution which is the more necessary, as the later editors have had the imprudence to interpolate whole passages in the Syriac text, namely the beginning of John viii. Acts viii. 37. 1 John v. 7, &c.
…
the Codex Cantabrigiensis, which has a great affinity to the Syriac version….
===============
My response to Dr. Ehrman is below. How would you respond to him?
_Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)_ by Bart D. Ehrman (2009), 292pp. On 36, 37
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted…061173940/
Joseph is not Jesus’ father. But that creates an obvious problem. If Jesus is not a blood-relation to Joseph, why is it that Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ bloodline precisely through Joseph? This is a question that neither author answers: both accounts give a genealogy that can’t be the genealogy of Jesus, since his only bloodline goes through Mary, yet neither author provides her genealogy. …. Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23; also Matthew 1:16). ….
There are other problems. In … Matthew’s genealogy …. from the Babylonian disaster to the birth of Jesus, fourteen generations (1:17). Fourteen, fourteen, and fourteen-it is almost as if God had planned it this way. …. The problem is that the fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema doesn’t actually work. If you read through the names carefully, you’ll see that in the third set of fourteen there are in fact only thirteen generations.
////////////////////////////
Matthew 1:17 says there are 14, 14, 14 generations.
Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s genealogy mistakenly list 14, 14, 13 generations.
In Aramaic mss. of Matthew’s genealogy, with Mt 1:16’s “gbra” correctly translated as father/guardian, Matthew’s genealogy lists 14, 14, 14 generations.
Mary had a father/guardian named Joseph (plus a husband also called Joseph).
Jesus is a descendant of King David on his biological mother Mary’s side (per Mt’s genealogy), and on his step-dad Joseph’s side (per Lk’s genealogy).
===============
“I like the Greek, but the Aramaic is more interesting. Any retro-translation opens up options and possibilities”
transliterations + translations: Hebrews 7:1-2
The bottom line is that in the original Aramaic for Hebrews 7:1-2, “Mlki-Zdq” got expounded as the partially-similar “Mlka d’Kanutha,” while in contrast,
the Greek version has the transliteration “Melchisedek,” which it translates as the very-dissimilar “basileus dikaiosyne.”
Also, in the original Aramaic, “Mlk Shlim” was expounded as the largely similar “Mlka d’Shlma,” while in contrast,
the Greek version has the part-translation, part-transliteration “basileus Salem,” which it fully-translates as “basileus eirene.”
We start with some Aramaic vocabulary.
Mlki-Zdq — King-Righteous, i.e. “Righteous King,” or: “King (of) Righteousness” [could it be ‘my righteous king’?]
(Incidentally, “zadiqa” means “righteous/ just, a righteous/ just man,” and “Zaduqia” are Sadducees.)
Mlk-Shlim — king (of) peace
d’mlka — of the kings
Mlka-d’Kanutha — king of righteousness
Mlk-Shlim — king (of) peace
Mlka-d’Shlma — king of peace
Hebrews 7:1-2 (based on Etheridge + Khabouris, from dukhrana.com)
1. For this Mlki-Zdq is Mlk-Shlim, the priest of Allaha the Most High.
And he met Abraham when he returned from the slaughter d’mlka [of the kings], and blessed him.
2. And to him Abraham separated the tenth from everything that he had with him.
Now his name, being expounded, (is) the Mlka-d’Kanutha;
and again, Mlk-Shlim, which is, Mlka-d’Shlma.
Note how in the original Aramaic, there’s 6 instances of “mlk”/king, and 3 instances of words having the letters “shlm”/ peace, as the author of Hebrews expresses things slightly differently (in different Aramaic dialects?).
We now take a look at the Greek transliterations and translations of the passage.
Hebrews 7:1-2 (hybrid of DLNT + MOUNCE; the bracketed “his name” is the DLNT’s)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...OUNCE;DLNT
For this Melchisedek [Melchizedek], basileus-Salem [king _of_ Salem], priest _of_ the Most-High God, remains _a_ priest perpetually–
the _one_ having met Abraham returning from the defeat _of_ the basileus [kings] and having eulogeo [blessed] him;
_to_ whom also Abraham divided dekatos [_a_ tenth] from everything;
_who is_ first ([his name] hermeneuo [being translated]), basileus-dikaiosyne [king _of_ righteousness];
and then also basileus-Salem [king _of_ Salem], which is basileus-eirene [king _of_ peace];
transliterations of the Greek transliterations:
Melchisedek: 1 instance
Salem: 2 instances
transliterations of the Greek translations:
basileus (5 instances; translates the Aramaic mlk/ ‘king’)
dikaiosyne (translates the Aramaic d’kanutha/ ‘of righteousness’)
eirene (1 instance; translates the Aramaic shlma/ ‘peace’)
===============
“Luke actually does have an answer to this problem, not one that would satisfy modern genetics, but good enough for Luke: ὡς ἐνομίζετο. As was customarily thought. Joseph adopted Jesus according to custom/law (νόμος). That’s all that matters to him”
So in Mt’s geneology, Mary’s husband Joseph is the 14th?
“myself included, think Luke 1-2 may have been a later addition to Luke’s gospel”
Arguments for thinking that Luke 1-2 was “a later addition to Luke’s gospel”?
“I’m aware of a few Aramaic (and Greek) attempts make Matthew’s genealogy into that of Mary, and her (adopted) father also named Joseph, but they strain credulity”
What flaws do you see in the attempt I presented?
“Is everyone on the Internet crazy?”
No.
“And, if so”
Not applicable.
My response to Dr. Ehrman is below. How would you respond to him?
_Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)_ by Bart D. Ehrman (2009), 292pp., 51
3. _Why does Matthew quote the wrong prophet?_
When Matthew indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he notes (as by now we expect of him) that this was in fulfillment of Scripture: “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, And they took the thirty pieces of silver … and they gave them for the potter’s field” (Mathew 27:9-10). The problem is that this prophecy is not found in Jeremiah. It appears to be a loose quotation of Zechariah 11:3.
////////////////////////////
For Mt 27:9-10, Greek manuscripts have the erroneous addition that Jeremiah said a particular remark, when there’s no Old Testament evidence that Jeremiah said that. The Aramaic original leaves unspecified the name of the prophet, avoiding an unnecessary contradiction: (based on Younan) “Then the thing was fulfilled which was spoken of by the prophet who said, “I took the thirty (pieces) of silver, the price of the precious one which (those) from the sons of Israel agreed upon.”
Did Matt 27:9 originally have:
“Jeremiah”?
“I took”? “they took”?
Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatessaron:
lack the erroneous “Jeremiah”;
have “I took.”
Matthew 27:9 (Aramaic–>Dutch; using google translate–>English)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/
https://www.biblehub.com/hpbt/…..hew/27.htm
Then what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled when he said, “And I took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of the Precious One, which those of the sons of Israel had agreed to,
by the prophet – this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT, and TR reads, “through the prophet Jeremiah,” which is false, for the thirty pieces of silver are a prophecy of the prophet Zechariah (Zech 11:12). In Jer. 18: 1-3…. In Jer. 32:6-15
….
I took – this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: ‘they took’.
Diatessaron 51:13 (Aramaic–>Arabic–>English)
https://www.newadvent.org/fath…..100251.htm
Therein was fulfilled the saying in the prophet which said, I took thirty pieces of money, the price of the precious one, which was fixed by the children of Israel; and I paid them for the plain of the potter, as the Lord commanded me.
===============
“What flaws do you see in the attempt I presented?”
“Soon after the genealogy, Matthew has the angel Gabriel address Joseph, Mary’s betrothed, as ‘son of David,'”
So Mary’s husband Joseph _wasn’t_ a “son of David”?
“force meanings on the text that no one would ever imagine if they were not looking for a way to resolve such theological problems”
So the Aramaic ‘gbra’ _doesn’t_ mean father/guardian?
===============
“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Do you think Mark 7:26 originally had “Greek”?
Mark 7 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/7.htm
25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet.
26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
///////////////////
corruption in calling someone Greek at Mk 7:25-28, leading to a contradiction with Mt 15:21+
In Mark 7:25-28, the Aramaic Peshitta reads,
(based on Younan)
“For immediately a certain woman whose daughter had an unclean rukha [spirit] heard about him [Yeshua], and she came (and) fell before his feet. Now that woman was kanapta [a heathen/ pagan/ foreigner] from Phoenicia in Syria, and was entreating him to cast out the shada [shade/devil] from her daughter. . . . . even the dogs eat from under the tables the crumbs of the children.'”
Greek manuscripts erroneously say the woman was Greek. This sets up an unnecessary contradiction with Mt 15:21+, where she is called a Canaanite:
“And Yeshua went out from there and came to the border of Tsur and of Tsidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from those borders came out while crying and saying, ‘Have mercy on me mari [my lord], the Son of Dawid. My daughter is seriously vexed by a shada. . . . even the dogs eat from the crumbs which fall from the tables of their masters and live.'”
===============
“So the Aramaic ‘gbra’ _doesn’t_ mean father/guardian?”
“Sure, it could mean that”
“So Mary’s husband Joseph _wasn’t_ a ‘son of David’?”
“According to Mt 1,16.20 he was”
The Greek Mt 1:16 has a mistranslation from the original Aramaic.
According to Luke’s genealogy, Joseph the husband of Mary was a descendant of King David.
Therefore it was appropriate for an angel to call Joseph the husband of Mary a son of David.
“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Do you think Acts 8:27 originally said “eunuch”?
Acts 8:27 (Berean Literal)
https://biblehub.com/acts/8-27.htm
And having risen up, he went. And behold, an Ethiopian eunuch, a potentate of Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship.
////////////////////
mistranslation for Acts 8:27
The Greek manuscripts have a mistranslation for Acts 8:27, which when translated better reads:
(based on Younan)
“And he [i.e. Pileepos/ Philip] arose (and) went and met a certain mahaymina [believer] who had come from Cush, an official of Qandeq, the malkta [queen] of the Cushites, and he was an authority over all her treasures. And he had come to worship in Urishlim.”
Re: MHYMNA, it can mean either ‘believer’ or ‘eunuch’– or many similar things. The Greek versions mistranslate this as ‘eunuch’ instead of the more contextually correct ‘believer.’–Paul Younan.
The Ethiopian _believer_ was intending to worship in Jerusalem, presumably in the temple there– which eunuchs were prohibited from doing by Deut 23:2. Cf. Mt 19:12.
===============
“Matthew makes lots of changes to Mark’s text”
For example?
“I’m not aware of any variants among the Greek manuscript evidence”
Nor I.
A 600+ page PDF of Greek Mark textual variants has entries for 7:24 and 7:28, but nothing in-between.
“I don’t immediately accept your view that the change was made to be more politically correct”
I don’t know the motivation(s) if any behind the corruption of calling her Greek.
“the Peshitta variant doesn’t seem specific enough to necessitate another reading in Greek”
The Greek has a corruption.
The original Aramaic, and Tatian’s by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron, lack that corruption.
Arabic Diatesseron 20:48, 49
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/a…..ge_75.html
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/a…..ii.xx.html
But straightway a Canaanitish woman, whose daughter had an [48, 49] unclean spirit, heard of him. And that woman was a Gentile of Emesa of Syria. And she came out after him, crying out, and saying, Have mercy upon me, my Lord, thou [50] son of David; for my daughter is seized in an evil way by Satan.^9 [9: “Or, _the devil_] And he answered [Arabic, p. 81] her not a word. …
===============
“Adds an infancy narrative, adds major discourses, eg, the Sermon on the Mount, adds the keys of the Kingdom being given to Peter”
What leads you to think that Matthew started with Mark’s text, and added material, and made other changes to Mark’s text? (‘scholarly consensus’?)
“I don’t know the motivation(s) if any behind the corruption of calling her Greek”
“Then you have no reason not to consider it original and to call it a corruption”
Do you know any motivations behind any changes? If so, what’s a change for which you know the motivation(s)?
===============
“What leads you to think that Matthew started with Mark’s text, and added material, and made other changes”
“It makes the most sense when one considers the improvements to the language and style”
The Peshitta Mt’s Lord’s Prayer has more rhyming than the Peshitta Lk’s Lord’s Prayer, which has more rhyming than the rhyming-less Greek Lord’s Prayer. Can I thereby conclude that the prayer was first written down as rhyming-less, got improved to have mostly-rhyming, and then got further improved to have even-more rhyming?
“the direction of the theological changes”
What direction was that?
“critical scholars are almost unanimous in this judgment for over a century”
Names of 2 dissenters?
“sometimes its fairly obvious”
What’s a change for which you know the motivation(s)?
===============
“what you’re calling rhyming is based on rather inconsequential aspects of Semitic language suffixes”
Are you aware of any Hebrew versions of the Lord’s Prayer that have any rhyming?
If you were to translate the prayer from Greek into Hebrew, how much rhyming could you come up with?
“I’m losing patience with your basic questions about everything”
Nobody is forcing you to respond in any way to my “basic questions.”
“Johann Jakob Griesbach & William Farmer”
Thanks.
“Matthew’s shows a little more artistry, which is oftentimes a mark of secondary literary activity”
Do you consider the ‘Janus parallelism’ in Mt 13:31-32 and Song of Songs 2:12 “a mark of secondary literary activity”?
/////////////////////////
Janus Parallelism in Mt 13:31-32
He [Yeshua] spoke another mathla [parable] in figure to them and said,
“The kingdom of heaven is likened to a grain of mustard seed
that a man took (and) sowed in his field.
And it is smaller than all the small seeds,
but when it grows it is greater than all the small herbs,
and becomes a tree
so that the birds [or: blossoms/flowers]
of heaven come (and) nest in its branches.”
The Aramaic word rendered ‘birds’ can also mean blossoms/flowers.
Hence, one way to read the poem would be to focus on the plant aspects:
seed – sowed in field – seeds – grows – herbs – tree – blossoms/flowers – in branches.
Another way to read the poem would be to focus on the bird aspects:
tree – birds of heaven – nest in branches.
Cyrus Gordon located a Janus parallelism in the Song of Songs 2:12, where the word for “pruning” can also mean “singing.”
Song of Songs 2:12 (NIV), my bracket
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV
Flowers appear on the earth;
the season of singing [or: pruning] has come,
the cooing of doves
is heard in our land.
Here are two possible ways of focusing on certain aspects of the poem:
flowers – earth – season – pruning – land.
____________ – season – singing – cooing – heard.
===============
http://aramaicnt.org/articles/…..a-primacy/
It’s only until around the turn of the third century we start seeing examples of /n-/ in the Imperfect regularly mixed in with /y-/, and by about the 4th century it had completely replaced /y-/ as the preferred prefix with not a single further documented example. By the dawn of the golden age of Classical Syriac literature (around the 5th century) /y-/ was absolutely nowhere to be found.
In other words the Peshitta, at the earliest, represents fourth century Syriac.
It cannot be from the first or second centuries AD as some proponents claim.
That sounds to me like saying that this cannot be from the 1600s:
‘And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus:
for he shall save his people from their sins.’
1611 KJV, Mt 1:21
https://www.kingjamesbibleonli…..Chapter-1/
And she shall bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his Name Iesus:
for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.
===============
“not a common word at all. The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac word”
Could it be slang?
http://aramaicnt.org/articles/…..a-primacy/
The Greek tradition says “Rabbouni” where the Peshitta tradition says “Rabbouli”. “Rabbouni” could easily come from rbwny rabuni which means “my teacher” or “my master” in Jewish dialects of Aramaic; however, “Rabouli” is not a common word at all. The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac word that means “head shepherd,” but the form “Rabouli” is not attested in any contemporary dialects to Jesus. It is not attested in Hebrew, either.
Second, they both claim that this word is “Hebrew,” rather than Aramaic. This is not so much of a problem in the Greek, as Ἑβραϊστί is commonly used to describe words of both Hebrew and Aramaic origins (in a sense it’s used as “the Jewish language”); however, in the Syriac Peshitta, it is only really used to describe Hebrew words….
So all these passages translated from Aramaic and mentioning ‘Hebrew’ are not in any way referring to Aramaic, but rather refer to Hebrew and only Hebrew?:
APNT
https://aramaicdb.lightofword……ord-search
Luk 23:38 And there was also an inscription that was written over him in Greek and Latin and Hebrew: “This is the king of the Judeans.”
Joh 5:2 Now there was in Jerusalem there a certain pool of baptizing, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, and it had five porches in it.
Joh 19:13 Now when Pilate heard this saying, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judgment seat in a place that is called “The Pavement of Stones,” but in Hebrew is called Gabbatha.
Joh 19:17 bearing his cross, to a place that was called ‘The Skull,’ but in Hebrew is called Golgotha,
Joh 19:20 And many of the Judeans read this board, because the place at which Jesus was crucified was near to the city and it was written in Hebrew and in Greek and in Latin.
Joh 20:16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” And she turned around and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbuli,” which means Teacher.
Act 21:40 And when he allowed him, Paul stood on the stairs and was motioning to them with his hand. And when they quieted down, he spoke with them in Hebrew and said to them,
Act 22:2 And when they heard that he was speaking with them in Hebrew, they quieted down more.
Act 26:14 And we all fell on the ground. And I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
===============
http://aramaicnt.org/articles/…..a-primacy/
Now within the Peshitta Primacy movement, the argument goes that in the Syriac Peshitta, the word for “husband” or gabrA) gavrā can also mean “guardian,” and therefore the Joseph listed here is Mary’s father or legal guardian. This would make Mary the next generation on the list, and round out the third set of 14 evenly.
Unfortunately gavrā has no such meaning.
So the g-b-r-a here doesn’t and can’t mean ‘fathers’?:
Matthew 7:9 (modified Younan)
https://www.dukhrana.com/peshi…../index.php
https://aramaicdb.lightofword……ear-search
Or whom among you g-b-r-a,
that of him his son asks bread,
why would hold out to him a rock?
===============
“It is generally thought that these miracles may have been seen as too pedestrian, perhaps even”
It sounds like you don’t know the motivations behind both Matthew and Luke removing the aforementioned Mark material.
“For Matthew, it is much more important to include the content of Jesus’ authoritative teaching, and not merely that his authority is shown in his miracles….
This redaction is not so clear. One idea: I suspect Matthew’s community is more insular (eg, Jesus telling his disciples not to go among the gentiles and Samaritans), perhaps a little less likely to”
It sounds like you don’t know the motivations behind Matthew removing the aforementioned Mark material.
===============
“Can you point to a single usage of gavra for an adoptive guardian of someone?”
No. I’m also not that familiar with Aramaic.
In ancient Hebrew, what word was used for a step-father? (‘none, because the ancient Israelites didn’t have any step-fathers’? ‘the same word they used for a biological father’?)
In ancient Arabic, what word was used for a step-father? (‘the same word they used for a biological father’?)
===============
“Would you like to look at what some excellent scholars have to say about this?”
Not really.
“What isn’t clear to you?”
Numerous things.
But it’s clear to me that you don’t know the motivations behind Matthew removing the aforementioned Mark material, nor do you know the motivations behind Matthew and Luke removing the aforementioned Mark material.
Some people believe Matthew and Luke started with Mark’s material and built on it.
“I don’t know the motivation(s) if any behind the corruption of calling her Greek”
“Then you have no reason not to consider it original and to call it a corruption”
========================
“not a common word at all. The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac word”
“Could it be slang?”
“Irrelevant. It would still be unattested… slang”
It’s not “irrelevant” to the allegation that “The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac word.”
“It would still be… anachronistic slang”
I don’t see how it would be “anachronistic.” I imagine it can take a while for a slang term to become widespread.
“‘Rabouli’ is not attested in any contemporary dialects of Jesus”
Does “not attested” mean, ‘it has not yet been found in an ancient document or inscription other than in the Peshitta’?
If the Greek NT has a word that’s “not attested in any contemporary dialects of Jesus,” would that mean that the NT wasn’t originally written in Greek?
“Wasn’t your comparison to the King James Version meant to imply that”
No. I’m merely stating what appears to me to be the case.
http://aramaicnt.org/articles/…..a-primacy/
It’s only until around the turn of the third century we start seeing examples of /n-/ in the Imperfect regularly mixed in with /y-/, and by about the 4th century it had completely replaced /y-/ as the preferred prefix with not a single further documented example. By the dawn of the golden age of Classical Syriac literature (around the 5th century) /y-/ was absolutely nowhere to be found.
In other words the Peshitta, at the earliest, represents fourth century Syriac.
It cannot be from the first or second centuries AD as some proponents claim.
That sounds to me like saying that this cannot be from the 1600s:
‘And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus:
for he shall save his people from their sins.’
1611 KJV, Mt 1:21
https://www.kingjamesbibleonli…..Chapter-1/
And she shall bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his Name Iesus:
for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.
===============
“said opinion is contrary to scholars who are very well versed in Aramaic”
What if any “scholars who are very well versed in Aramaic” thought part of the NT was originally written in Aramaic? (‘none’?)
“I’m not sure such a concept existed”
The concept of ‘step-father’ exists in English today.
If I pointed to a step-father, and asked an ancient Hebrew speaker what word she’d use to describe him, what word would she use? (the same word she used for a biological father?)
If I pointed to a step-father, and asked an ancient Arabic speaker what word she’d use to describe him, what word would she use? (the same word she used for a biological father?)
===============
“sometimes the motivations are fairly obvious”
What’s an instance where “the motivations are fairly obvious”?
===============
“be better for you to become more familiar with Aramaic”
Agreed.
“the hypothetical time-machine argument”
It sounds like you don’t know if ancient Israelites and ancient Arabic speakers did or didn’t have a word for ‘step-father’ distinct from ‘father.’
“instance where ‘the motivations are fairly obvious’?”
“Mk 4,1 vs Mt 13,1. You’ll need to read Greek to understand this one. Do you know Greek?”
No.
“Mk 10,35-40 vs Mt 20,20-23. Matthew blames the request of James and John on their mother rather than allow these leaders in the movement appear to have made the arrogant request themselves”
Per Matthew, Jesus’ other students blamed not the mother for the audacious request, but rather James and John– see below.
Do you know the motivation(s) behind Luke leaving out any mention of the request and the other students’ indignation at the 2 brothers? (‘no motivations– Luke completely overlooked Mark’s account of the request’?)
Matthew 20 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/20.htm
20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 “What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”
22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
=====================
"it’s just a forced reading on the text"
I don't consider interpreting the g-b-r-a here as 'fathers' a "forced reading on the text":
Matthew 7:9 (modified Younan)
https://www.dukhrana.com/
Or whom among you g-b-r-a,
that of him his son asks bread,
why would hold out to him a rock?
"those who do not want to admit that there might be contradictions or mistakes in their Bible"
The Greek NT calls the Syro-Phonecian woman a Greek, contradicting itself. Some people don't like that contradiction in the Greek NT. Others are perfectly OK with their translated-into-Greek NT's contradictions and mistranslations and added glosses.
"Matthew’s version tends to deflect the blame on the mother for the readers"
Readers are told that the other students blamed James and John.
"Jesus while responding to the mother, is also speaking directly James and John, without noting the change"
Readers can tell that James and John respond to Jesus' question.
"motivation(s) behind Luke leaving out any mention of the request and the other students' indignation at the 2 brothers?"
"Possibly he left this part out for the same reason that Matthew ameliorates the role of James and John"
So possibly Luke tried to present James and John in the best possible light?
Luke 9
https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/9.htm
51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.
52 And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him;
53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem.
54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them.