04-26-2004, 06:54 AM
OS-GNT agreeance v. P
Example 3
As I mentioned earlier I am doing research into OS similarities with the Greek, which go AGAINST the Peshitta. I will show my third example. I have made this to counter some claims that the Peshitta is a revised OS to be more Hellenized, as there are also many examples that indicate otherwise, and historical proof rebukes it so soundly. So here is an example:
In the Greek we have as the first part of Matthew 22:19
to nomisma tou khnsou oi
"nomisma" is "coin". Curetonian and Sinaiticus mss. of the OS agrees with the Greek. However, the Peshitta uses the word here 0rnyd, "denarius", which is more specific than just "coin".
Here, the OS (both) agree with the Greek against the Peshitta, contrary to the beliefs of people who seek to suppress the Peshitta.
One could argue of course that the Peshitta reading sounds more "harmonised" and I think you know where I am going with this, the claims that would arise. Even worse is that the Peshitta agrees with the Diatessaron here. However, any claims that the Peshitta verse here is harmonised as it was "created from the Diatessaron" are unproven. If the original sounds more "harmonised" than its copies, so be it. The Diatessaron then agrees with the Peshitta, because it is created from it. Unfortunately when dealing with the Peshitta, most learned men just assume that the Peshitta is the translation from anything, whether OS, D or GNT.
There are plenty more examples like this, I just wanted to show that I am serious and not asking questions about Rabulla's intentions for nonsense. I have gaps in my research and was told by a young man that I could find some answers here. Thankyou.
Example 3
As I mentioned earlier I am doing research into OS similarities with the Greek, which go AGAINST the Peshitta. I will show my third example. I have made this to counter some claims that the Peshitta is a revised OS to be more Hellenized, as there are also many examples that indicate otherwise, and historical proof rebukes it so soundly. So here is an example:
In the Greek we have as the first part of Matthew 22:19
to nomisma tou khnsou oi
"nomisma" is "coin". Curetonian and Sinaiticus mss. of the OS agrees with the Greek. However, the Peshitta uses the word here 0rnyd, "denarius", which is more specific than just "coin".
Here, the OS (both) agree with the Greek against the Peshitta, contrary to the beliefs of people who seek to suppress the Peshitta.
One could argue of course that the Peshitta reading sounds more "harmonised" and I think you know where I am going with this, the claims that would arise. Even worse is that the Peshitta agrees with the Diatessaron here. However, any claims that the Peshitta verse here is harmonised as it was "created from the Diatessaron" are unproven. If the original sounds more "harmonised" than its copies, so be it. The Diatessaron then agrees with the Peshitta, because it is created from it. Unfortunately when dealing with the Peshitta, most learned men just assume that the Peshitta is the translation from anything, whether OS, D or GNT.
There are plenty more examples like this, I just wanted to show that I am serious and not asking questions about Rabulla's intentions for nonsense. I have gaps in my research and was told by a young man that I could find some answers here. Thankyou.