Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Acts 3:14
#1
Shlama Akhay,

In the Bezan Greek text, we read with astonishment: <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Quote:"But you irritated (??bar??nate) the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you"

In all other Greek manuscripts, we read:

Quote:"But you denied (??rn??sasqe) the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you"

The original Aramaic word used in Acts 3:14 is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Jwtrpk[/font] ("Kaparthon", you denied.) This was confused for [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Jwtrdk[/font] ("Kadarthon", you irritated.) There is only 1 letter difference between the two words.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
I love these "1 letter difference examples", but is bezan byzantine? and others is alex, western etc?
Reply
#3
No, the Bezan text is what's known as the "Western text." It is known by the abbreviation "D" in textual criticism circles.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
Silly me <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> Bezan = bezae

Man, manuscript D has provided us with so many split words etc, gotta love those Westerners
Reply
#5
It is also, incidentally, the textual tradition that most scholars believe was the first Greek of the N.T.

What does that do for our cause? <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
What does it do Akh?
Reply
#7
It's the "missing link" between the Aramaic text and the later, more refined, Alexandrian and Byzantine texts.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#8
Yeah. Unfortunately, the Zorbans can say the same reversed... e.g. Western is the original Greek, heavily influenced by Semticisms, and was translated into Aramaic... Luckily we have all the proofs <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#9
The Zorbans can claim anything they want, of course. But until they show me Aramaic mistranslations from the Greek - it's all garbage.

How come we never see any "Polysemy" examples going the other way? (1 Greek word with 2 definitions, and the Aramaic texts split on how they translate?)

Shouldn't we see some of these 1-letter differences going the other way, too?

Is the Peshitta the only "perfect translation" in the history of translations?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
Yeah u r 100% correct. Unfortunately they may use "multiple derivation" examples like the sheep example (ewes, rams) and claim that as split words lol
Reply
#11
More like LMAO - what reason would an Aramaic translator have to vary a single word for "sheep" - 3 TIMES IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH? I can understand not paying attention or getting sleepy, but COME ON - he'd have to be stone drunk not to notice that one.

We're not talking about different manuscripts here disagreeing with one another based on multiple definitions of a single Greek word.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
Do we have any more of these "one letter differences" in Luke/Acts and John?? Paul or anyone. Are these a frequent occurance??

Mike
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)