Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Possible Zorban mistakes for the NT
First, did Zorba mistranslate aramaic word 'satana'?

The aramaic word 'satana' is rendered as Greek 'diabolos' (slanderer / false accuser, devil) in the following verses:
Quote:Matthew 13:39
Luke 4:5
John 6:70, John 13:2
1 Timothy 3:6-7
2 Tim. 2:26
Hebrews 2:14
James 4:7
1 Peter 5:8
1 John 3:8, 10

Second, Zorba may have blown it in Acts 10:38. Aramaic word 'by$)' (evil, wrong) is rendered as 'diabolou' (devil, slanderer, false accuser)

Third, Luke 8:12 aramaic word 'b(ldbb)' (enemy, adversary) is rendered as 'diabolos' (devil, slanderer, false accuser)

Otherwise in the NT (W5 not included) -- Zorba was consistent to translate 'satana' into Satan and he did well to translate the aramaic words for 'accuser'.

So, could this hurt Aramaic Primacy or help it?


(Seems like Zorba may have done some dynamic equivalence, probably because Greek audience may have not known who Satan is.)


Hi DC,

I found that Origen in the 230's A.D. had the reading "devil" in his Greek copy of the Greek NT for Acts 10:38, so it goes back at least that far in the Greek. I have not found the variant reading of "evil" ancient Greek copies as yet, but will keep looking, and in other ancient language versions...but in English, if we drop the "D" in "Devil", we get "evil", so... <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Also, for Luke 8:12, check and look in the other two Gospel accounts that record this same statement, and see the various words used in the Greek and Aramaic. It's interesting.

Shlama Drawcloser,

to add to this, you should check out the first handful of posts at the following thread on this site:

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2925</a><!-- l -->

it deals with a Greek variant of Satana that really makes you think.... tho once you get to the responses of one called ZARDAK you can pretty much call the thread quits cause it descends into some Greek primacy based off of weird numeric patterns that don't actually exist in any known extant manuscript.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
@ Thirdwoe - I checked the other two gospel accounts. Matthew 13:39 and Mark 4:15, as far as I know, they are consistent...

And both of you -- where do you find the variants of the Greek? I checked that thread out, and Burning one, you listed manuscripts in particular. Do you have an online source or do you have the Nestle-Aland book?

And just a heads up, I used Blue Letter Bible and to help me out. BLB has a Greek concordance, a lot of the English translations, also the TR and the "Alexandrian text" -- so that could help with Aramaic primacy stuff.
Shlama all,

Consider this:

Textus Receptus Wrote:There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John?s disciples with some Jews about purification.

(The TR reading is also found in the Vetus Latina "Codex Palatinus", and in Jerome's Vulgate)

'Alexandrian' and other Byzantine manuscripts Wrote:There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John?s disciples with a Jew about purification.

I checked already and this looks good. Since an Aramaic Gospel of Yuchanan had no singular / plural markings -- Zorba couldn't tell how to render the word yhwdy)

**This is in John 3:25**

@ Shamasha Paul, is *this* one actually good?

(And by the way, what is a shamasha?)



Yes, that is the type of variant that can be explained by the lack of syame marks (plural) in the early Aramaic manuscripts. That type of variant within the Greek texts is a powerful indicator of an underlying Aramaic original from which the two texts were drawn.

Shamasha is a colloquialism in modern neo-Aramaic, for the ancient Aramaic Mshamshana ("Minister/Servant"), which is the office of Deacon within the Church.

Thank you for the affirmation, akhi Paul.

This is awesome, because John 3:25 reads differently in Latin and Greek - both texual traditions from 4-5th century! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

But Paul, I now believe aramaic primacy for Gospel of Yuchanan, but why does prqlT) appear in (John 16:7). Is that a loan word like 'namusa'?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)