+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Rev 11: my 2nd witness (/showthread.php?tid=3606)
Pages:
1
2
Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 04-21-2023
"When did the 2 witnesses show up? Who were the 2 witnesses?"
I looked at Rev 11 in
http://dukhrana.com/crawford/
and I think that "2 witnesses" is better rendered as 'My 2nd witness.'
That 2nd witness was Jesus the son of Ananus.
https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-11-a-preterist-commentary-who-are-the-two-witnesses/#easy-footnote-bottom-9-130
....Jesus the son of Ananus. The following is written about him in _The Wars of the Jews_:
[T]here was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for everyone to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud,
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, and a voice against this whole people!"
This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was,
"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"
And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him who he was, and whence he came, and why he uttered such words; he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.
Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow,
"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"
Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force,
"Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!"
And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.^9 [9: Josephus _The Wars of the Jews_ 6.5.3.
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 04-28-2023
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/translationineng00nort
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?id=Y1gHAAAAQAAJ&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.
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-02-2023
“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-Gospels-Comparative-Translations/dp/1931956189/
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_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Matthew+12:19&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=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=2:7566&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&source=khabouris&size=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/?search=hebrews+7%3A1-4&version=KJV;HCSB;NABRE;MOUNCE;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/?search=song+of+soloman+2%3A12&version=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.
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-03-2023
"Murdock translates this as ‘man’ here, as does Magiera"
In Mark 14:3 and Acts 8:27, both Murdock and Magiera mistranslated to get 'leper' and 'eunuch.'
Better translations of the original Aramaic is 'Simon the jar-maker/ potter' and 'Ethiopian believer.'
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new-english-word-search
Mar 14:3
(APNT)
And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper while reclining, a woman came who had near her an alabaster box of perfume of spikenard, the best, very costly, and she opened it and poured it on the head of Jesus.
(Murdock)
And when he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he reclined, a woman came having an alabaster box of precious ointment of spikenard, of great price; and she opened and poured upon the head of Jesus.
Act 8:27
(APNT)
And he rose up [and] went. And he met a certain eunuch, who had come from Ethiopia, an official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. And he was responsible for all of her treasure and had come to worship in Jerusalem.
(Murdock)
And he arose and went. And there met him a eunuch, who had come from Cush, an officer of Candace, queen of the Cushites, who had charge of all her treasure; and he had come to worship at Jerusalem.
"If the author wanted to specify ‘father’, he would use ܐܒܐ, which the Peshitta uses for the same statement in Lk 11,11"
That sounds to me like speculation. Re: Matthew 7:9 and Luke 11:11, is it your view that Matthew _didn't_ want to specify 'father,' while Luke _did_?
"The Greek NT calls the Syro-Phonecian woman a Greek, contradicting itself"
"If it were a mistake, that would more likely be a sign of originality, as mistakes tend to get corrected by later scribes and translators"
Later scribes and translators often introduce errors, e.g. the mistranslations in the Greek NT.
"Matthew deflects the impetus of the request onto the mother, away from James and John. Do you really think, Mark would have embellished Matthew’s account to make the James and John look worse?"
I don't accuse anybody there of embellishing.
"to make the James and John look worse"
Hiding behind one's mother's skirts to submit a request is worse than being manly about making one's request directly.
"their question about ‘calling down fire from heaven to destroy them’ is actually not all that bad from Luke’s perspective"
It looks bad to me. Luke says Jesus rebuked them.
"It is similar to Jesus’ own cursing of Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, or any town that did not accept his who did not accept his disciples (Lk 10,10-15)"
I don't think Jesus cursed those places.
"How do you interpret Lk 10,10-15"
A curse involves desiring that harm come to another.
Jesus didn't wish for harm to come to anyone.
Luke 10 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/luke/10.htm
9 And heal those who are sick in it and say to them,
“The Kingdom of God has come near to you.”
10 “But whichever city you enter
and they will not receive you,
go out to the street and say”:
11 'Even the sand that cleaves to our feet
from your city we wipe off unto you,
yet know this,
The Kingdom of God has come near to you.'
12 “I say to you that
it shall be pleasant for Sadom in that day,
compared to that city.”
13 “Woe to you Korazin,
woe to you Bethsaida,
because if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Tsidon
that have occurred in you,
they doubtless would have repented in sackcloth and in ashes.
14 “Yet for Tyre and for Tsidon
it shall be pleasant in the day of judgment
compared to you.”
15 “And you Kapernahum, she that was exalted unto Heaven,
you shall be debased unto Sheol.”
Matthew 23 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/matthew/23.htm
36 Amen, I say to you,
all these things will come upon this generation.
37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that murdered The Prophets
and stoned those who were sent to it!
How many times have I desired to gather your children,
as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,
and you were not willing!
38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
"In the context of Mt 7,9, it can make more sense, but it is still rather unusual for ܓܒܪܐ to be translated as ‘father’. Do you know of anywhere else in the Peshitta that ܓܒܪܐ is translated as ‘father’?"
I don't consider interpreting the g-b-r-a here as 'father/s' 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?
Matthew 17:14-15 (modified Younan)
And when they came towards the crowds, a
g-b-r-a approached him and bowed down on his knees, and said to him, "Mari [my lord], have mercy upon me, for my son-- who has a demon of lunacy and is badly afflicted-- many times he has fallen in the fire, and many times in water.
Matthew 21:28
But what do you think?:
A certain g-b-r-a had two sons.
And he drew near to the first one and said to him,
'My son, go (and) work today in the vineyard.'
Matthew 22:2
"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a
g-b-r-a-- a malka [king]--
who prepared a wedding-feast for his son.
Luke 8
41 And a certain g-b-r-a whose name was Yorash, a chief of the assembly, fell before the feet of Yeshua and was beseeching from him that he might enter his house,
42. for he had an only daughter about twelve years old, and she was about to die. ….
Luke 9:38
And a certain g-b-r-a from the crowd cried out and he said, "Malpana [teacher], I beseech you, take notice of me! He is my only son to me,
Luke 15
11. And Yeshua would say to them again,
"A certain g-b-r-a had two sons.
12. And his younger son said to him,
'Abbi [my father], give to me the portion that is coming to me from your estate.'
And he divided to them his possessions.
John 4
49. That servant of the malka [king] said to him, "Mari [my lord], come down before the boy dies."
50. Yeshua said to him, "Go. Your son is alive."
And that g-b-r-a believed in the word that Yeshua spoke to him, and he departed.
Matthew 1
16. Yaqub fathered Yosip, the g-b-r-h
[i.e. "the Possessive Pronominal form of" g-b-r-a, meaning 'her g-b-r-a']
of Maryam, from whom was born Yeshua, who is called the Meshikha.
17. Therefore, all the generations from Awraham until Dawid (were) fourteen generations,
and from Dawid until the captivity of Babel (were) fourteen generations,
and from the captivity of Babel until the Meshikha (were) fourteen generations.
==================================
what you’re calling rhyming is based on rather inconsequential aspects of Semitic language suffixes”
“If you were to translate the prayer from Greek into Hebrew, how much rhyming could you come up with?”
“Exactly the same amount. It would be difficult to avoid. When you use the same suffixes repeatedly, they sound the same.”
I see rhyming in this Arabic version of the Lord’s Prayer in verse 12: r, a, r, a.
Where if anywhere else in the Arabic do you see rhyming?
Mt 6 (Ketab El Hayat (NAV))
https://www.biblegateway.com/p…..ersion=NAV
9b
أَبَانَا الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاوَ
اتِ، لِيَتَقَدَّسِ اسْمُكَ!
10
لِيَأْتِ مَلَكُوتُكَ!
لِتَكُنْ مَشِيئَتُكَ عَلَى الأَرْضِ
كَمَا هِيَ فِي السَّمَاءِ!
11
خُبْزَنَا كَفَافَنَا أَعْطِنَا الْيَوْمَ!
12
وَاغْفِرْ لَنَا ذُنُوبَنَا،
كَمَا نَغْفِرُ نَحْنُ لِلْمُذْنِبِينَ إِلَيْنَا!
13
وَلا تُدْخِلْنَا فِي تَجْرِبَةٍ،
لَكِنْ نَجِّنَا مِنَ الشِّرِّيرِ،
لأَنَّ لَكَ الْمُلْكَ وَالْقُوَّةَ وَالْمَجْدَ إِلَى الأَبَدِ.
آمِين.
Inserted ;s and =====s
9b
أَبَانَا ;
الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاوَ ;
============================
اتِ، لِيَتَقَدَّسِ اسْمُكَ! ;
10
لِيَأْتِ ;
مَلَكُوتُكَ! ;
لِتَكُنْ ;
مَشِيئَتُكَ ;
============================
عَلَى الأَرْضِ ;
كَمَا هِيَ فِي السَّمَاءِ! ;
============================
11
خُبْزَ ;
نَا كَفَافَنَا ;
أَعْطِنَا ;
الْيَوْمَ! ;
============================
12
وَاغْفِرْ ;
لَنَا ذُنُوبَنَا، ;
كَمَا نَغْفِرُ ;
نَحْنُ لِلْمُذْنِبِينَ إِلَيْنَا! ;
============================
13
وَلا ;
تُدْخِلْنَا ;
فِي تَجْرِبَةٍ، ;
لَكِنْ نَجِّنَا ;
مِنَ الشِّرِّيرِ، ;
لأَنَّ لَكَ الْمُلْكَ وَالْقُوَّةَ وَالْمَجْدَ إِلَى الأَبَدِ. ;
آمِين ;
Google translate of that
9b
our father;
who is in the heavens;
============================
Come, hallowed be thy name! ;
10
let him come;
Your kingdom! ;
let it be ;
your will ;
============================
On the ground ;
As it is in heaven! ;
============================
11
bread ;
our subsistence;
give us ;
today! ;
============================
12
and forgive;
We have our sins, ;
as we forgive;
We are for those who sin against us! ;
============================
13
no ;
enter us ;
in an experiment, ;
But we survived;
from the evil one, ;
because you have the power, glory and the kingdom for ever. ;
Amen ;
Google translate from before I segmented the Arabic further:
9b
Our Father in heaven
Come, hallowed be thy name!
10
May your kingdom come!
Thy will be done on earth
As it is in heaven!
11
Give us our daily bread!
12
and forgive us our sins,
As we forgive those who trespass against us!
13
lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil,
because you have the power, glory and the kingdom for ever.
Amen.
Google translate transliteration
9b
‘abana ;
aladhi fi alsamaw ;
============================
ati, liataqadas asmuka! ;
10
liat ;
malakutuka! ;
litakun ;
mashiyatuk ;
============================
ealaa al’ard ;
kama hi fi alsama’i! ;
============================
11 khubz ;
na kafafana ;
‘aetina ;
alyawma! ;
============================
12 waghfir ;
lana dhunubana, ;
kama naghfir ;
nahn lilmudhnibin ‘iilayna! ;
============================
13 wala ;
tudkhilna ;
fi tajribatin, ;
lakin najina ;
min alshiriyri, ;
l’ana lak almulk walquat walmajd ‘iilaa al’abadi. ;
amin
Peshitta’s Matthew
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
==========================================
“I don’t speak Arabic”
Nor I.
“when you translate the Greek Our Father into Aramaic or Hebrew (or any Semitic language)”
Arabic is a “Semitic language.” Besides the Arabic verse 12’s r, a, r, a, do you see any rhyming?
“you are going to end up with a lot of what you call ‘rhyming’ because the suffixes will sound the same”
====================================
“I’m just talking about the most common translation of these words”
The “most common translation” yields
1. ‘Simon the leper’– when lepers were prohibited from congregating with non-lepers–
2. ‘the Ethiopian eunuch’ planning to worship in Jerusalem– when those castrated were prohibited by Mosaic law from entering the temple–
and
3. ‘Joseph the husband of Mary’– when the context is people being fathers of other people, with 14 x 3 sets of generations, and a ‘thought switcher’ after the presentation of the geneology.
In short, 3 of the Greek NT’s mistranslations. Besides several additional mistranslations.
“See the translations of Murdock, Magiera, Younan”
Native Aramaic speaker Younan thinks Mt 1:16 has ‘Joseph the guardian/father of Mary.’
“Were they all wrong here?”
Younan is correct.
“Do you know of anywhere else in the Peshitta where ܓܒܪܐ is translated as ‘father’ (or ‘step-father’ or ‘guardian’)?”
In a couple places it seems to me to refer to ‘people’ generally, as in ‘have the men (i.e. the people: men, women, and children) sit down in groups’; I recall 1 such instance in Matthew, and 1 such instance in Luke.
In most places it refers to males, without indicating any familial relationship.
In a few places it refers to men who are obviously husbands.
In a few places it refers to men who are obviously fathers.
“If so, by whom, and what percentage of the total number of usages are translated in this way?”
From counting g-b-r-a in Magiera’s concordance:
Mt: 44 instances.
Given the context, I’d say 5 are best rendered with father/s: Mt 1:16, 7:9, 17:14, 21:28, and 22:2.
Given the context, 1 is best rendered with ‘husband’: Mt 19:10.
Everything else: man or men.
Mk: 18 instances.
husband – Mk 10:2
Everything else: man or men.
Lk: 62 instances.
3 are best rendered with father: Lk 8:41, 9:38, 15:11
husband – 0
Everything else: man or men.
Jn: 28 instances.
1 is best rendered with father: Jn 4:50.
husband – 0
Everything else: man or men.
Acts: I didn’t look these up, but Magiera’s concordance lists ~113 instances of g-b-r-a. None of them she translated as ‘husband.’ Everything is man or men, with the exception of Acts 3:14, where her concordance mentions ‘murderer.’
/////////////////////////////////////////
Glenn David Bauscher has translated the Peshitta NT and OT, except for its OT deuterocanonical books.
The Aramaic 'd-i-n,' a 'thought switcher,' is the second word in Peshitta 1:18 and 1:19.
Matthew 1 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/matthew/1.htm
16 Yaqob begot Yoseph the guardian of Maryam, her from whom was begotten Yeshua, who is called The Messiah.
17 Therefore all generations from Abraham until David were fourteen generations, and from David until the captivity of Babel, fourteen generations, and from the captivity of Babel until The Messiah, fourteen generations.
18 The birth of Yeshua The Messiah was thus: when Maryam his mother was engaged to Yoseph before they would have a conjugal relation she was found pregnant from The Spirit of Holiness.
19 But Yoseph her lord was righteous and did not want to expose her, and he was considering divorcing her secretly.
"The Number of Generations in Matthew 1: A Proposition Based on the Peshitta" (2017), 61pp., on 54
PDF: https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2104/9938/Sena%2520-%2520The%2520Number%2520of%2520Generations%2520in%2520Matthew%25201.pdf
Conclusion
Due to the semantic ranges of ... [g-b-r-h, i.e. 'her g-b-r-a'] and ... [b-ai-l-h, i.e. 'her baal'/ lord] in Matthew 1.16 and 1.19, respectively, Matthew 1 may speak of two people named ‘Joseph.’ This would make the third section have 14 generations. It would also harmonize the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, albeit with Joseph as Mary’s guardian instead of either tradition of Joachim or Zadoq as her father.
This proposition may be unconvincing, perhaps depending on one’s regard for _P_ [i.e. the Peshitta]. It may disregard the midrashic nature of the genealogy in Matthew 1. Nevertheless, it is less strained than the other explanations, and the most likely.
///////////////////////////////////
"for Mt 1,16, Younan says, 'It is unclear whether the text refers to Maryam’s father or to her husband.'"
Younan wrote
Feature 3 – Mistranslating the Genealogies of Yeshua, pp. 228-241.
On 241:
So this example makes a very clear case for translating 0rbg as "father", if it is drawn from the proper context.
in
'Raphael Lataster,' _Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Peshitta Primacy_ (2008), 298pp.
PDF: http://ia902200.us.archive.org/16/items/WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek1e/WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek1e.pdf
///////////////////////////////////////////////
“what I said still holds for… Aramaic”
For Old Syriac Curetonian, I see lack of the Khabouris Peshitta’s rhyming in Mt 6:10 (see the -s around the rhyme-breaking word), and in 6:11.
Because OS Sinaitic has merely 6:9 completely, 6:10 fragmentarily, and lacks any more text until Mt 8:3, it’s too incomplete to check its rhyming.
OS Curetonian is missing 6:13’s ‘and the power,’ and has an added-later ‘amen.’
using Peshitta tool of
http://dukhrana.com
Matthew 6:9 – ܗܟܢܐ ܗܟܝܠ ܨܠܘ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ
ܢܬܩܕܫ ܫܡܟ ܀ (Khabouris)
Matthew 6:9 – ܗܟܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܗܘܝܬܘܢ ܡܨܠܝܢ ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ
ܢܬܩܕܫ ܫܡܟ ܀ (OS Curetonian)
Matthew 6:9 – Thus pray: Our Father who art in the heavens!
be sanctified thy Name. (Etheridge)
Matthew 6:10 – ܬܐܬܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ ܢܗܘܐ ܨܒܝܢܟ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܐܦ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܀ (Khabouris)
Matthew 6:10 – ܬܐܬܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ -ܘܢܗܘܘܢ- ܨܒ̈ܝܢܝܟ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܀ (OS Curetonian)
Matthew 6:10 – Come thy kingdom. Be done thy will, as in heaven, also in earth. (Etheridge)
Matthew 6:11 – ܗܒܠܢ ܠܚܡܐ ܕܣܘܢܩܢܢ ܝܘܡܢܐ ܀ (Khabouris) n a, n a
Matthew 6:11 – ܘܠܚܡܢ ܐܡܝܢܐ ܕܝܘܡܐ ܗܒ ܠܢ ܀ (OS Curetonian) n a, a n
Matthew 6:11 – Give to us the bread of our need to-day; (Etheridge)
Matthew 6:12 – ܘܫܒܘܩ ܠܢ ܚܘܒܝܢ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܐܦ ܚܢܢ ܫܒܩܢ ܠܚܝܒܝܢ ܀ (Khabouris)
Matthew 6:12 – ܘܫܒܘܩ ܠܢ ܚܘ̈ܒܝܢ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܐܦ ܐܢܚܢܢ ܢܫܒܘܩ ܠܚܝ̈ܒܝܢ ܀ (OS Curetonian)
Matthew 6:12 – and forgive us our debts, as also we forgive our debtors; (Etheridge)
Matthew 6:13 – ܘܠܐ ܬܥܠܢ ܠܢܣܝܘܢܐ ܐܠܐ ܦܨܢ ܡܢ ܒܝܫܐ ܡܛܠ ܕܕܝܠܟ ܗܝ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܘܚܝܠܐ ܘܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ܀ (Khabouris)
Matthew 6:13 – ܘܠܐ ܬܝܬܝܢ ܠܢܣܝܘܢܐ ܐܠܐ ܦܨܢ ܡܢ ܒܝܫܐ ܡܛܠ ܕܕܝܠܟ ܗܝ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܘܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܀ (OS Curetonian)
Matthew 6:13 – and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory to the age of ages. (Etheridge)
///////////////////////////
https://www.britannica.com/bio…..er-Torrey#
Charles Cutler Torrey, (born Dec. 20, 1863, East Hardwick, Vt., U.S.—died Nov. 12, 1956, Chicago), U.S. Semitic scholar who held independent and stimulating views on certain biblical problems.
Born: December 20, 1863 Vermont
Died: November 12, 1956 (aged 92) Chicago Illinois
Subjects Of Study: Bible Islam Semitic languages
Torrey studied at Bowdoin (Maine) College and Andover (Mass.) Theological Seminary and in Europe. He taught Semitic languages at Andover (1892–1900) and Yale (1900–32), and was founder and first director (1900–01) of the American School of Archaeology (later renamed the American School of Oriental Research) at Jerusalem.
…. In The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels (1912), The Four Gospels: A New Translation (1933), and Our Translated Gospels (1936), Torrey held that the four Gospels were Greek translations from Aramaic originals. The posthumous Apocalypse of John (1958) argues that Revelation was a translation of an Aramaic original written in AD 68.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
“Is this the same Raphael Lataster, the self-proclaimed ‘ahistoricist scholar’ who now ‘argues that agnosticism over Jesus’ historical existence is more than reasonable, that outright denying Jesus’ historicity is quite fair’ and the logical impossibility of the monotheistic concept?”
Yes– the one and the same.
“That does not seem likely”
Christopher Lancaster aka ‘Raphael Lataster,’ Michael Shermer, and Bart Ehrman were Christians at one point, but presently aren’t Christians.
“Did Younan change his mind about ܓܒܪܐ in Mt 1,16?”
I’m sure his views on the word have changed through the years.
This is from 2016:
peshitta.org, the forum
Paul Younan
Administrator
*******
Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 2
#203-01-2016, 11:05 PM
“Gabra” in all Aramaic dialects just means the generic “man”, in contrast to “Talia” which means “boy.”
So a father and a husband can be referred to as “gabra”.
Hence, it was Mary’s father who shared the same common name as her future husband, and both were properly referred to as her “gabra.”
+Shamasha
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de’Beth-Younan
////////////////////////////////
“Does he still believe in Peshitta primacy?”
Probably not, judging by this:
_Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists_, Raphael Lataster with Richard Carrier (2015)
https://vdoc.pub/documents/jesus-did-not-exist-a-debate-among-atheists-6hq9tkatvja0
2. THE CASE FOR HISTORICITY: CASEY
….
In a section on dating the synoptic Gospels, Casey continues to rail against the likes of amateurs like ‘Blogger Godfrey’ and Acharya S, and notes his own reliance on a ‘special’ type of source.[327]
“Our earliest source, the Gospel of Mark, is also full of peculiarities which are due to his use of sources which were written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and all of his earliest followers… This is one of many pieces of evidence that parts of Mark’s Gospel were translated from Aramaic sources.”[328]
That didn’t take long. Just like Ehrman, Casey places great importance on hypothetical sources, and partly argues for them on the basis of mistakes caused by the supposedly poor translating skills of the Gospel authors.[329] That is worth repeating. Casey relies on sources that _do not exist_, and apparently, that is perfectly acceptable to New Testament historians.
////////////////////////////////
someone:
From Raphael Lataster’s Facebook page (January 9, 2016):
"Steve Caruso: Caruso and McGrath have brought up the oddity that I used to be a ‘Peshitta primacist’; I used to believe that the NT was originally written in Aramaic, rather than Greek. This is true. I was wrong. I have been wrong before. Such as when I was a Christian and I thought God existed. *ba-dum-tss* I was a Christian then. I was an untrained and unqualified teenager, desperate to hold onto my fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I am no longer Christian, fundamentalist, untrained, or a teenager, so obviously my methods and outlook have changed."
////////////////////////////////
“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Would this be an “impossible” reading?:
from Lataster’s book on Jesus:
[483] Ronald F. Hock, _The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas: With Introduction, Notes, and Original Text Featuring the New Scholars Version Translation_ (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995), p. 109. The surrounding pages portray Jesus’ _Carrie_-style rampage, killing, cursing, and blinding, left and right.
///////////////////////////////
It would be neat to see an interlinear of the Arabic.
Syriac Gospels, British Library, Add. 14467
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Gospels,_British_Library,_Add._14467
British Library, Add MS 14467, is a Syriac manuscript of the New Testament, according to the Peshitta version, on parchment. Palaeographic analysis has dated the manuscript to the 10th century.[1]
Description
The manuscript contains the fragments of Gospel of Matthew (folios 1-8) and Gospel of John (folios 9-15), according to the Peshitta version, with Arabic translation, on 15 leaves (10 by 6¾ inches). The writing is in two columns per page, 26-37 lines per page. The Syriac column is written in Nestorian character, with occasional vowel-points and signs of punctuation, the Arabic column has a few diacritical points.[1]
Contents
Matthew 7:22-11:1; 11:22-12:10; 16:21-17:13;
John 8:59-10:18; 16:13-18:3; 19:27-20:25.
The larger sections are marked both in the Syriac and Arabic texts.[1]
The manuscript was brought from the covenant of St. Mary Deipara, in the Nitrian Desert.[1]
The manuscript is housed at the British Library (Add MS 14467) in London.[1]
/////////////////////////////////////
“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Would this be an “impossible” reading?:
Wilson, vol. 1, on 6, for Matthew 1:16
"Jacob begat Joseph, the Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, he begat Jesus, who is called the Messiah." -- Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus
/////////////////////////////////////
'Old Syriac' Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus has the mistranslation 'Simon the leper' in Matthew 26:6 and again in Mark 14:3. See pages 246 and 328 of Wilson.
We lack Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus for those verses.
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-06-2023
Questions for Proponents of 'Marcan Priority'
Do you believe that both Matthew and Luke removed this Mark material?:
Mark 4 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/mark/4.htm
26 And he said,
“Thus is the Kingdom of God like
a man who cast seed in the ground.”
27 “And he shall sleep and arise by night and by day
and the seed grows and lengthens while he is unaware.”
28 “For the earth produces fruit itself;
first shall be the blade
and afterward the ear,
then finally the full wheat in the ear.”
29 “But whenever the fruit ripens,
immediately the sickle is brought
because the harvest has arrived.”
Mark 7 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/7.htm
32 There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged Jesus to place his hand on him.
33 After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man’s ears. Then he spit and touched the man’s tongue.
34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means “Be opened!”).
35 At this, the man’s ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.
36 Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it.
37 People were overwhelmed with amazement. “He has done everything well,” they said. “He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”
Mark 8
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/8.htm
22 They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him.
23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”
24 He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.”
25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.
26 Jesus sent him home, saying, “Don’t even go into the village.”
Mark 9 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/mark/9.htm
49 “For everything will be seasoned with fire
and every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt.”
50b .... Have salt in you
and be at peace with one another.”
Mark 13 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/mark/13.htm
35b .... in the evening or at midnight
or at cockcrow or in the morning.”
36 “Lest suddenly he come and find you sleeping.”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you believe Matthew removed this Mark material?:
Mark 1
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/1.htm
21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach.
22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.
23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out,
24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are– the Holy One of God!”
25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!”
26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching– and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.”
28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.
Mark 9
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/9.htm
38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,
40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
Mark 12
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/12.htm
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything– all she had to live on.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you believe both Matthew and Luke turned Mark's "the wine will be destroyed" into [Mt]"the wine is poured out"/ [Lk]"it will be spilled out"?
Mark 2:22 (Berean Literal)
https://biblehub.com/blb/mark/2.htm
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins;
otherwise the wine will burst the wineskins,
and the wine will be destroyed—and the wineskins.
Instead, new wine _is poured_ into new wineskins.”
Matthew 9:17
https://biblehub.com/blb/matthew/9.htm
Nor do they pour new wine into old wineskins.
Otherwise the wineskins are burst,
and the wine is poured out,
and the wineskins are destroyed.
But they pour new wine into new wineskins,
and both are preserved.”
Luke 5:37
https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/5.htm
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins;
if now otherwise, the new wine will burst the wineskins,
and it will be spilled out,
and the wineskins will be destroyed.
38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you believe both Matthew and Luke turned Mark's "nest under its shade" into "nest/nested in its branches"?
Mark 4 (NKJV)
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/mark/4.htm
30 Then He said,
“To what shall we liken the kingdom of God?
Or with what parable shall we picture it?
31 It is like a mustard seed which,
when it is sown on the ground,
is smaller than all the seeds on earth;
32 but when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all herbs,
and shoots out large branches,
so that the birds of the air may nest under its shade.”
Matthew 13
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/13.htm
31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying:
“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed,
which a man took and sowed in his field,
32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds;
but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree,
so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”
Luke 13
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/luke/13.htm
18 Then He said,
“What is the kingdom of God like?
And to what shall I compare it?
19 It is like a mustard seed,
which a man took and put in his garden;
and it grew and became a large tree,
and the birds of the air nested in its branches.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you believe both Matthew and Luke left out “and the gospel’s”?
Mark 8:35 (NKJV)
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/mark/8.htm
For whoever desires to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.
Matthew 16:25
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/16.htm
For whoever desires to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Luke 9:24
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/luke/9.htm
For whoever desires to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you believe both Matthew and Luke left out mention of:
“He took them up in His arms”?
Jesus’ indignation/ being “greatly displeased”?
Mark 10 (NKJV)
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/mark/10.htm
13 Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them,
“Let the little children come to Me,
and do not forbid them;
for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Assuredly, I say to you,
whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
will by no means enter it.”
16 And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.
Luke 18
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/luke/18.htm
15 Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them to Him and said,
“Let the little children come to Me,
and do not forbid them;
for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 Assuredly, I say to you,
whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
will by no means enter it.”
18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
Matthew 19
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/19.htm
13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said,
“Let the little children come to Me,
and do not forbid them;
for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.
Matthew 18
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/18.htm
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,
3 and said,
“Assuredly, I say to you,
unless you are converted and become as little children,
you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you believe both Matthew and Luke:
left out "So they called to the blind man, 'Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.' Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus"?
replaced the 'rabbi' in Mark's “Rabbi, I want to see” with 'lord'?
Mark 10 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/10.htm
48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.”
So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.”
50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.
51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.”
52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.”
Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
Matthew 20
https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/20.htm
31 The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet, but they shouted all the louder, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”
32 Jesus stopped and called them.
“What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
33 “Lord,” they answered, “we want our sight.”
34 Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes.
Immediately they received their sight and followed him.
Luke 18
https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/18.htm
39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him,
41 “What do you want me to do for you?”
“Lord, I want to see,” he replied.
42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.”
43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God.
When all the people saw it, they also praised God.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you believe both Matthew and Luke left out “the father of Alexander and Rufus"?
Mark 15 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/15.htm
21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”).
Matthew 27
https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/27.htm
32 As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
33 They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”).
Luke 23
https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/23.htm
26 As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
27 A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you believe both Matthew and Luke left out:
"Salome"?
"they asked each other, 'Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?'"?
Mark 16 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/16.htm
1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Matthew 28 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/28.htm
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.
Luke 23 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/23.htm
54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.
55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.
56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
Luke 24 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/24.htm
1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.
5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?
6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee:
7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ”
8 Then they remembered his words.
9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.
10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.
11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-11-2023
"None of these are convincing. Yes, a father is a man, but that is not a good reason to translate the word ‘man’ with the word ‘father’, not when there is a different word that very clearly means ‘father’ that is not used.
'So a father and a husband can be referred to as ‘gabra’.'
"Yes, fathers and husbands are men, but that does not mean you should translate ‘man’ as ‘father’"
Do you think 'g-b-r-h/ her g-b-r-a' should be translated as 'her husband'?
"The example referred to here is from 1999"
Yes, which is only 20 and not 2,000 years ago.
I saw 'ab'/ father in Qumran's The Genesis Apocryphon, but no g-b-r-a.
I didn't locate an 'ab' in Qumran's fragmentary Targum Job.
https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Texts-Qumran-Semitic-English/dp/9004044523/
"It demonstrates only that there can be a multiple words for ‘man’ and a translator may want to indicate this multiplicity in the target language. The real question is why the author of the Peshitta version of Mt 1 used two different words for Joseph"
'Fathered' worked for almost-all of the fatherings. However, one Joseph wasn't a biological father of Mary, so a different word was used: g-b-r-h.
Putting 'father' into google translate and getting the Arabic yields 'ab.' Which is what Hebrew and Aramaic have for 'father.'
Putting 'stepfather' into google translate and getting the Arabic yields "زوج الأم"/ zawj al'umi.
Putting those Arabic words on separate lines, and then getting the English, yields 'husband the mom.'
============================
"More than Delitzsch’s and the Modern Hebrew translations of the Greek?"
I'd wager 'yes,' but my copy of a 'Hebrew Matthew' hasn't arrived yet, and I haven't recently looked.
When I looked a few years ago at a Hebrew Matthew, I didn't notice any rhyming.
"Learn to read Greek"
You know Greek. Is this a correct statement?:
The Greek Matthew Lord's Prayer has rhyming.
"there is no real dispute that Jesus spoke Aramaic"
Is there any dispute about what language Jesus' students:
spoke?
wrote?
==================================
"A more literal translation would be ‘her man’, which is a common way to indicate a husband"
The context is a geneology, with a slew of people fathering other people.
Overlooking the context often yields mistranslations, e.g. with the Greek Matthew 1:16's mistranslation.
"'her man', which is a common way to indicate a husband"
2 instances where ‘her man’ in Aramaic "indicate a husband"?
How did ancient Hebrews indicate a stepfather?
"That is the more precise word for father"
Where in Aramaic Matthew 1 do you see 'ab'?
=================================
"scholarly explanations of these"
"it’s more of a database than a book. You’ll need to travel to Leuven to use it, one of the greatest exegetical libraries in the world. That’s the cost of wanting to learn from the best scholars"
I'm unaware of any good grounds for accepting the 'Marcan priority' hypothesis.
===================================
"What does 'epiousios' mean?"
"Any good commentary (e.g., Davies & Allison, Luz, Bovon, or Fitzmyer) can walk you through the four or five most common interpretations, including at least seven different proposed theories for the original Semitic word here."
=================================
"I don’t use the word ‘rhyming’"
I use it.
"in Matthew you certainly have the same sounding words in Greek: ἡμῶν four times and this same word in different cases four more times. Verbs ending in -έ/ήτω three times.
Lines ending in -α σου three times"
This sounds like rhyming to me: "Lines ending in -α σου three times"
"Extensive alliteration in the central line: τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον· True rhyming in the word endings of the next three lines: ἡμῶν, ἡμῶν, πειρασμόν"
That sounds like rhyming to me.
Is this a correct statement?:
In the Greek Matthew Lord’s Prayer, one set of 3 lines ends with the same sound, and another set of 3 lines ends with the same sound.
====================================
“If the author wanted to specify ‘father’, he would use ܐܒܐ, which the Peshitta uses for the same statement in Lk 11,11”
Do you believe that in the passages below, if Jesus had wanted to specify ‘husband,’ he would have used g-b-r-a?
John 4:16 (modified Etheridge)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=John+4:16&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
Jeshu saith to her,
Go, call l'b-ai-l-k-i [to your baal/lord/master],
and come hither.
John 4:18
for five b-ai-l-i-n hast thou had,
and this whom thou now hast is not b-ai-l-k-i;
this hast thou said truly.
≠=======================================
“I don’t use the word ‘rhyming’”
"I use it."
"Despite the fact that I’ve given you good reasons not to."
"This sounds like rhyming to me:
'Lines enn -α σου three times'"
"Usually we use ‘rhyming’ for two different words that nonetheless end the same. This, on the other hand, is repetition of the same word, similar to Hebrew’s repetition of the same suffix. The same word always sounds exactly the same as itself. No great poetic feat in that."
“Extensive alliteration in the central line:
τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·
True rhyming in the word endings of the next three lines:
ἡμῶν, ἡμῶν, πειρασμόν”
"That sounds like rhyming to me."
"Alliteration is not ‘rhyming’ but it can be stylistic. Note I already said here that second example is true rhyming."
"Is this a correct statement?:
In the Greek Matthew Lord’s Prayer, one set of 3 lines ends with the same sound, and another set of 3 lines ends with the same sound."
"It’s minimally correct but insufficient if you want to understand how these and other aspects of the Greek results in what you call ‘rhyming’ in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac."
If ‘rhyming’ involves "two different words that nonetheless end the same," while "repetition of the same word" doesn't qualify as contributing to 'rhyming,' then it appears to me that the Greek Lord's Prayer has 2 instances of rhyming:
1. σήμερον
ἡμῶν
2. ἡμῶν
πειρασμόν.
That's less rhyming than the Aramaic Luke,
which in turn has less rhyming than the Aramaic Matthew.
https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/6-9.htm
https://translate.google.com
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
Πάτερ ἡμῶν ==
ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· ==
Ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ==
\ἐλθάτω / ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, ==
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ==
ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ ==
καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς· ==
Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον· ==
καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ==
ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν· ==
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ==
ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. ==
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
Páter imón ==
o en toís ouranoís: ==
Agiasthíto tó ónomá sou, ==
\eltháto / elthéto i vasileía sou, ==
genithíto tó thélimá sou, ==
os en ouranó ==
kaí epí gís: ==
Tón árton imón tón epioúsion dós imín símeron: ==
kaí áfes imín tá ofeilímata imón, ==
os kaí imeís afíkamen toís ofeilétais imón: ==
kaí mí eisenénkis imás eis peirasmón, ==
allá rýsai imás apó toú poniroú. ==
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
Our Father ==
the one in the heavens; ==
Hallowed be thy name, ==
Your kingdom is coming, ==
let your will be done, ==
as in heaven ==
and on earth; ==
Give us this day our daily bread; ==
and forgive us our debts, ==
as we too are left to our debtors; ==
and lead us not into temptation, ==
but deliver us from evil. ==
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-13-2023
"Shem Tov’s Hebrew manuscript of Matthew"
The text and a translation of that appears in
_The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew_ by George Howard (1995), 239pp.
https://www.amazon.com/HEBREW-GOSPEL-MATTHEW-George-Howard/dp/0865549893/
Quickly looking through it reveals that it departs from the original Aramaic far more than does the Greek translation.
Some verses in it that caught my attention are Matthew:
1,16, 21
2,23
4,10, 13
6,10, 13
8,20
11,21
12,4, 42
13,55
15,22, 23
16,16
18,11
19,12, 24
21,9
22,44
23,10, 23
24,14
25,31
26,6
27,9, 33, 57, 59
===================================
For Matthew 26:6, both George Howard's copy of Shem Tov and the Greek say Jesus & company visited the house of a leper.
Lepers couldn't have non-leper house guests. A better translation of the original Aramaic is house of a potter.
https://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/IFoundMannah/KJVRevisions/ShemTovsHebrewMatthewWithASequenceOfTranslations.htm
(Shem Tov)
ויהי כאשר היה יש״ו בכפר חנניה בבית סימון המצורע
(Howard's translation)
It came to pass when Jesus was in Cephar-hananyah in the house of Simon the leper,
(google translate)
And it came to pass when Jesus was in the village of Hananiah in the house of Simon the leper
(KJV)
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
(based on Younan)
And when Yeshua was in Beth-Aniya, in the house of Shimon the potter,
====================
For Matthew 7:6, the Greek has 2 mistranslations, and Shem Tov makes an even bigger mess.
(Shem Tov)
עוד אמר להם אל תתנו בשר קדש לכלבים ואל תשימו פניכם לפני חזיר פן יכרסמנו אותה לעיניכם ויחזרו אותה לקרוע אתכם.
(Howard's translation)
Again he said to them:
Do not give holy flesh to dogs
nor place your (pearls) before swine
lest (they) chew (them) before you
and turn to rend you.
(google translate)
He also told them not to give holy meat to dogs
and not to put your face before a pig,
lest we gnaw it before your eyes
and they bring it back to tear you apart.
(KJV)
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet,
and turn again and rend you.
(based on Younan)
You should not hang earrings on dogs,
and you should not place your pearls before pigs,
that they should not trample them by their feet,
and they overtake and wound you.
=========================
For Matthew 27:9-10, the Greek has the erroneous insertion of "Jeremiah," while Shem Tov replaced Jeremiah with Zechariah, and has augmentation to the detriment of the passage.
(Shem Tov)
אז נשלם מאמר זכריה הנביא ואומר להם אם טוב בעיניכם רבו שכרי ואם חדלו. וישקלו שכרי שלשים כסף. ויאמר ה״ אלי השליכו אל היוצר. וזהו מהאדם היוצר חרס כאשר אדוני צוה.
(Howard's translation)
9 Then was fulfilled the word of Zechariah the prophet:
And I said to them:
if it is good in your eyes, multiply my wages,
but if (not), forbear.
So they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver.
Then the Lord said to me:
Cast it unto the potter.
This is from the man who forms clay,
10 as the Lord commanded.
(based on Younan)
9. Then the thing was fulfilled which was spoken of by the nabia [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.
10. And I gave them for the field of the potter as MrYa [Master YHWH] commanded me."
===========
According to Gorgias Press's single volume Peshitta NT (2020), 661pp., 63
https://www.gorgiaspress.com/peshitta-english-new-testament
the verb in Peshitta Matthew 21:14 can be understood either as
'they brought to him the blind and the lame'
or as
'the blind and the lame came to him.'
The Greek translator of the original Aramaic misunderstood it as the latter.
Shem Tov has that same misunderstanding.
(Shem Tov)
ויקרבו אליו עורים ופסחים במקדש וירפאם.
(Howard's translation)
Then the blind and lame came to him in the temple and he healed them.
Matthew 21:14
https://biblehub.com/matthew/21-14.htm
(NIV)
The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them.
(King James)
And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
And they brought to him in The Temple the blind and the lame, and he healed them.
============================================================
"the translation of ‘potter’ is not at all clear in Aramaic"
Yes, there is ambiguity in the Aramaic.
And the translator of Matthew into Greek chose the wrong meaning.
"(note the use of ܦܚܪܐ in Mt 27,10), which is why other translators from the Syriac do not choose it"
Matthew 26:6
http://dukhrana.com
(Egbert Nierop's Dutch Peshitta)
Terwijl Yešúʿ te Bét-Anyā in het huis van Šemʿún de melaatse^of 'de kruik'.
was,
^, using google translate: or 'the pitcher'.
google translate:
While Yesúʿ at Bet-Anyā in the house of Shemʿún the leper^or "the pitcher."
was
(Pad van Waarheid tot die Lewe Afrikaans Peshitta)
Toe Yeshua in Beit-Anyah, in die huis van Shim’on, die pottebakker was,
google translate:
When Yeshua was in Beit-Anyah, in the house of Shim'on, the potter,
"Is it only chosen as an argument of Peshitta primacists?"
Not that I know of.
Do you consider Charles Cutler Torrey-- who thought Matthew thru Acts 16 plus Revelation were originally in Aramaic-- among the "Peshitta primacists"?
"one who has been cured of leprosy can still be referred to as a leper (eg, Lev 14,3 LXX)"
(Brenton Septuagint)
https://biblehub.com/leviticus/14-3.htm
And the priest shall come forth out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague of the leprosy is removed from the leper.
So translators of Hebrew Leviticus into Greek considered an ex-leper a leper. Interesting.
If somebody continued to call me a leper, despite my having had leprosy in the past but not currently, I'd sue for defamation.
"Yet others can also see this as the willingness of Jesus to engage with lepers, even those with active disease"
Jesus healed people of leprosy, and hence had "willingness... to engage with lepers."
Lepers weren't permitted to host non-lepers. The Greek Matthew has a leper hosting non-lepers.
"Yes, indeed if you change the vocalized verb of the Peshitta, changing it from the Paʿʿel to the Pəʿal. Is that what you’re saying, that the Peshitta has an error in it that needs to be corrected?"
There weren't vowel points originally.
=========================================
_The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew_ (2021), version 2.2, 104pp., on 2, author's bracket
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Gospel-Matthew-Justin-Rensberg/dp/B09T5TYQ6X/
https://www.hebrewgospels.com/matthew
PDF: https://www.hebrewgospels.com/_files/ugd/c68db9_d371926e16544fffb29b6b28f0146c7f.pdf
16 Ya'aqov begot Yoseph, the [betrothed]^b of Miryam, of whom was born Yeshua^c who is called Mashiach.
b: Or acc. to some Shem-Tov mss.: "the father of Miryam."
=========================================
In Peshitta Matthew, there are 20 instances of MrYa i.e. Master YHWH while looking at Magiera's concordance to the Peshitta. [22:44 has only 1 MrYa.]
Munster's Hebrew Matthew lacks YHWH in Matthew 12:4, 22:43, and 22:45-- while Peshitta Matthew has YHWH in those locations.
Howard's Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew similarly lacks an indication of 'The Name' in Matthew 12:4, 22:43, and 22:45,
plus Shem Tov has corruption with 'HaShem'/'The Name' added to Matthew 21:12, 22:31, 22:32, 27:9, and 28:9.
table in
https://tetragrammaton.org/tetra5.html
Those 5 additions of 'The Name' are just a few instances of Shem Tov's many corruptions. It's surprising that anybody pays the blatantly-corrupted Shem Tov much attention.
_The Hebrew Pages of the New Testament_ (2016), 464pp. Pages 240-406 has Matthew in:
duTillet, Munster, duTillet/Munster as English, Shem Tov as English, and Shem Tov.
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Pages-Testament-Updated-Scholars/dp/1312943440/
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-19-2023
"it’s just a forced reading on the text"
Is translating g-b-r-h as 'her husband' "a forced reading on the text"?
_A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods_ by Michael Sokoloff (2002), 1582pp., on 258-259
https://archive.org/stream/a-dictionary-of-jewish-babylonian-aramaic-of-the-talmudic-and-geonic-periods-by-/A%20dictionary%20of%20Jewish%20Babylonian%20Aramaic%20of%20the%20Talmudic%20and%20Geonic%20periods%20by%20Michael%20Sokoloff%20%28z-lib.org%29_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/details/a-dictionary-of-jewish-babylonian-aramaic-of-the-talmudic-and-geonic-periods-by-
1# g-b-r-a ... n.m. man, husband ...
1. man: a. general:
... what (difference) is a man from (other) men? San 65b(25); ...
when we were young (we wanted) to become men.
Now that we have grown old (we want) to become children BQ 92b(53);
2. husband: sg. ... a certain husband who divorced his wife Pes 110b(15);
... a certain husband who threw a _get_ to his wife among the vats Git 19b(55);
... I want a husband Qid 31b(25);
... her husband went (and) married another woman Ket 80b (7);
... it is permitted for a menstruous woman to be together in one room with her husband San 37a(22);
... (a woman) whose husband is an 'ant' Ket 75a(18);
... her mother's husband Anan 103:18;
pl.abs. ... Jewish husbands SSHai 13b(19);
det. ... these (men) are our husbands Git 45a(45; O^);
... you should be modest (even) in the presence of your husbands Sab 140b(28);
... they wait for their husbands Ber 17a(48);
3. authority: sg. ... an authority the son of an authority MQ 25b(4);
... you are raising a contradiction between one authority and another Er 82a(l);
... transmits it without (additional) authorities Ket 6a(12);
4. sg. in phrase ... euph. for 1st or 2nd pers. pron. I, you [lit. that man; ....
==============================================
"examples where ‘authority’ is used for a ‘father’ or ‘step-father’?"
Not yet.
It'd be interesting to find out how Catholic priests came to be called 'father.'
"I have no objection to the translation of ‘husband’; it’s common enough, perhaps especially in translation of Greek or Hebrew"
Do you have any objection to saying Matthew presents Mary's lineage?
_Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes_ (1993, 2000), 381pp., on 55
https://www.amazon.com/Saint-Ephrems-Commentary-Tatians-Diatessaron/dp/0199221634/
Matthew wrote concerning the genealogy of Mary, from whom our Lord was born.
This was why he began with,
_From David and from Abraham_, according as the promise indicated.
_Not to you and to your descendants as though unto many,
but to you and to your descendant, which descendant is Christ_.
Luke, however [was concerned] only with Joseph, husband of Mary,
and [went back] as far as Adam who is from God,
so that he might teach that he, who in the beginning created Adam,
established the Temple.
=================================================
"b: Or acc. to some Shem-Tov mss.: 'the father of Miryam.'"
"Which mss and what word do they use for ‘father’?"
Beats me.
"this discussion is pointless"
Nobody is forcing you to reply.
Charles Cutler Torrey
"thought the Old Syriac gospels were translations made by Jews from Palestine and the Peshitta was also a translation. His own theories of Aramaic originals have been largely rejected by scholars, in large part because of the findings in contemporary Greek texts by Deissmann, Grenfell, and Hunt. Edgar Goodspeed, a linguist and specialist in Semitic languages without peer, extensively criticized Torrey and pointed out how Semiticists disagreed among themselves (DMI). Torrey’s historical view that all of the New Testament was written before 50 CE is not followed by any critical scholars. By the way, he did not think the gospel of Luke, as is, was written in Aramaic, but Greek, though he hypothesized that Luke first arranged Aramaic sources and translated them. Currently the definitive work on this is Semitisms in Luke’s Greek: A Descriptive Analysis of Lexical and Syntactical Domains of Semitic Language Influence in Luke’s Gospel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) by Albert Hogeterp and Adelbert Denaux, one of my professors in grad school. Note that Torrey preferred ‘jar merchant’ to ‘potter’, and this is based merely on his assumption “there must have been enterprising tradesmen (not makers of jars) who bought at wholesale and supplied the ever-lively market” (OTG, 96). He presents no evidence of common usage of this word for a ‘jar merchant’ or ‘potter’."
"the point. גרב, גרבא can rarely mean ‘skin bottle’, ‘jug’, but ‘potter’ is not a typical translation. It seems to have been questionably derived from the fact that a jug can be made by a potter. It’s not very clear to me if that it is a good translation"
Native Aramaic speaker Paul Younan thinks it's fine.
"Are you aware of this meaning appearing often in other contexts?"
No.
"There weren’t vowel points originally"
"So you admit that the Peshitta is a revision into which mistakes have been introduced?"
All mss. including Peshitta mss. have mistakes.
All existing mss. of the 4 gospels are copies of and differ from the very first Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn.
As I look at dukhrana.com's Peshitta lookup tool 'analyze' option,
and look at Silver's transcription of Khabouris
http://dukhrana.com/khabouris/
and the accompanying ms. pics for
Matthew 26:6 (on 63),
Mark 14:3 (on 109), and
Luke 22:10 (on 187),
I don't see Khabouris differentiating between g-r-b-a as leper vs. potter.
Do you?
==================================
http://dukhrana.com
Mark 14:3 - Toen Hij in Bethanië was, in het huis van Simeon, de melaatse, kwam er terwijl Hij (aan tafel) aanlag, een vrouw met een albasten kruik met balsem van de beste en kostbaarste nardusolie. Zij opende die en goot (de olie) over het hoofd van Jezus uit.
Bethanië - zie de noot bij Mt. 21:17.
de melaatse - het Aramese woord ‘garbā’ dat we in de Peshitta aantreffen, kan in een niet-Syrisch Aramees dialect zowel ‘melaatse’ als ‘pot’ of zelfs ‘pottenbakker’ betekenen. Bauscher en Paul Younan kiezen daarom voor de vertaling ‘pottenbakker’ en redeneren dat Jezus toch niet bij een melaatse, een onreine voor de Wet, op bezoek zou gaan. Een viertal andere vertalingen van het Aramees houden echter vast aan de vertaling ‘melaatse’. Zie de noot bij Mt. 26:6.
het hoofd van Jezus - dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta. De lezing van de Griekse NA28, MHT en TR luidt: ‘zijn hoofd’.
google translate:
Mark 14:3 - While He was in Bethany, in the house of Simeon the leper, while He was reclining (at table), a woman came with an alabaster jar of ointment of the best and most precious nard's oil. She opened it and poured (the oil) on the head of Jesus.
Bethany - see note at Mt. 21:17.
the leper - the Aramaic word "garbā" found in the Peshitta can mean "leper" as well as "pot" or even "potter" in a non-Syriac Aramaic dialect. Bauscher and Paul Younan therefore opt for the translation 'potter' and reason that Jesus would not visit a leper, an unclean person for the Law. However, four other translations of Aramaic stick to the translation 'leper'. See note to Mt. 26:6.
the head of Jesus - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'his head'.
=============================================
"There have been many apologetic attempts to argue that Luke (or more rarely Matthew) gives an unusual maternal genealogy. These are apologetic because they are motivated primarily to resolve the obvious contradictions between the two genealogies"
Did Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306 – 373) have that motivation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrem_the_Syrian
The third category of Ephrem's writings is his prose work. He wrote a biblical commentary on the Diatessaron (the single gospel harmony of the early Syriac church), the Syriac original of which was found in 1957.
============================================
Maybe this would be better: Shimon Jar/Pot/Pottery.
Paul Younan in the thread "Potter in MT 26 A translation mistake"
http://peshitta.org/
November 9th, 2011, 12:23 am:
....in Aramaic the word Garaba (jar-collector, jar-maker, keeper-of-jars, etc.) is a totally different word than Garba (leper). They are spelled with the same consonants, but the vowels are different and the words are pronounced differently.
Here is the relevant entry from Toma Audo's dictionary: (note: it is a secondary meaning as attested to by Mar Toma Audo below): ....
Mar Toma noted (highlighted in blue) that "garba" is "leper" ("(he) who has leprosy in his flesh"). The secondary meaning, highlighted in red, is "garaba" ("he who has jars (garbe)").
I have translated "garaba" (jar-keeper) in Matthew 26:6, not "garba" (leper). See the context around the verse, too.
Additionally, it is not only we who have made this connection. It was also noted by Professor Charles C. Torrey of Yale Univesity (professor of Semitic Languages): ....
We are told in Luke 17:12, that the ten lepers stood a distance from Christ while pleading to be cleansed...and we should make this verse in Matthew 26:6 read that Christ walked into a leper's home, and others were voluntarily present also?
November 9th, 2011, 05:47 pm:
....it could go either way. This was a major issue before vowel points were invented. I can't rule out "leper", either, grammatically either one works fine.
Yet, while both can work, it's the translators job to decide which one makes more sense. The Greek translator decided "leper" made more sense, apparently unaware of the implication of a bunch of people having dinner at a leper's home. Shimon may have been cured of his leprosy, perhaps even by Meshikha, but we have no record of that. And besides, why would his nickname continue that stigma ?
Add in the factor of the lady with the alabaster jar of fine perfume/incense, and you wonder whether or not the proper way to look at Shimon is that he was associated somehow with fancy vessels, perhaps as his job.
Very important, Akhi, notice that this was part of his name. "Shimon Garaba", like "Shimon Keepa". The text does not say, "Shimon, who was a leper", it literally implies that is how he was known, almost as if it's a surname. This is very indicative of how it should be translated.
=========================================
“evidence of this meaning appearing often in other contexts”
The meaning appeared often enough to make it into dictionaries.
_A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods_ by Michael Sokoloff (2002), 1582pp., on 298
https://archive.org/details/a-dictionary-of-jewish-babylonian-aramaic-of-the-talmudic-and-geonic-periods-by-
1# g-r-b-a, g-r-a-b-a n.m. jug, bottle (TA … pl. TJ 1S 25:18, Sy g-r-b-a [3 dots over ‘r’ in a boomerang shape pointed to the left; 2 dots over ‘b’ at an angle slanted upward pointing to the right]
LS 130; cf. Akk _gurabu_ A bag CAD G 136, mng.
1)
a. general: sg. _Bo_ 119:20;
b. for wine: sg. … _Sab_ 10b(36);
_Pes_ 36b(40) [expl. BH … 2S 6:19];
_ib_. 52b(19);
_Bes_ 12b(38);
_Meg_ 7a(53);
pl.cs. … ib. 7b(l);
c. for oil: pl. … sixty jugs of oil _BB_ 73b(18; MGG 51:16)
Lit: D. Shapira, IJ 4[1999] 134 [Iranian etym.]; Y: … _Pes_ ib.(BAYTN 79).
2# g-r-b-a [no dots] n.m. troop (…) sg. … a troop came at night and plundered the town _Ber_ 60b(58) [RaH: … OHR ib. 67:28]
3# g-r-b-a [dot to left of, and a dash under, ‘g’;
2 vertical dots under ‘r’;
T shape under ‘b’] n.m. leprosy (TA g-r-b-a [triangle shape pointed downward toward left over ‘g’;
triangle shape pointed to left over ‘b’] TO Dt 28:27, Sy g-r-b-a [a dot above and a dot below ‘g’; dot above ‘r’; two dots over ‘b’ at an angle slanted upward pointing to the right, plus 1 dot below, ‘b’] LS 130) sg. … _Bo_ 74:13 [in a list of diseases]
=======================================
“evidence of this meaning appearing often in other contexts”
The meaning appeared often enough for Torrey, Jastrow, and the CAL to know about it.
_A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushlami, and the Midrashic Literature_ by Marcus Jastrow, pg. 263, bottom right-hand corner
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/Jastrow/index.php?p=263
using Peshitta tool, analyze, on Khabouris for Luke 22:10 at
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Luke+22:10&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
--->
http://cal.huc.edu/getlex.php?coord=620422210&word=11
grb, grbˀ (grāٰ/aḇ, grāٰḇā/garbā) n.m. skin bottle, jug
1 skin bottle, jug OfAGen, Hatran, JLAtg, Gal, Sam, Syr, JBAmb, JBA. MareshaOstr.12 1:2 : גרבי שכר בסי[ם jars of sweet beer. TAD C3.28 R..2.22 : בגרב חמשת[א . TgJ Jer13:12 : כָל גְרָב יִתמְלֵי חֲמַר . P 1S1:24 : ܓܪܒܐ ܚܕ ܕܚܡܪܐ . Judith 7:21 : ܘܓܪ̈ܒܝܗܘܢ ܐܣܬܦܩܘ their water-skins became empty. MG 22:73.2.18 : שתין גראבי משחא sixty jugs of oil. (a) earthenware jar(?) CPA, Syr. LESC 90.1:16 : ܚܕ ܓܪܒ ܕܡܝ̈ܢ . P Je48:12 : ܘܡܐ̈ܢܝܗܘܢܼ ܢܣܿܪܩܘܢܿ ܘܓܪ̈ܒܝܗܘܢܼ ܢܿܫܚܩܘܢ they shall despoil their vessels and crush their jars . P Lk22:10 : ܓܿܪܵܒܼܵܐ ܕܿܡܲܝܵܐ̈ .
2 a type of garment (?) Syr. MiS 420b:28 .
A culture word of uncertain origin. See Ciancaglini, ILS, 145.
The usage at Hatra may be influenced by inner-Arabic semantic developments. Akkadian gurābu is only found in late texts and is a loanword into that language, as noted by CAD G.
LS2, as is his unfortunate wont, renders the Judith passage as "cistern" or the like, following the Greek. But that is not what the Syriac says.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 255[130]; DJPA: 135a; DJBA: 298a; Jastrow: 263; Payne-Smith: ~766; J. Payne-Smith: 77; Levy Ch-W: 1:152; Tal Sam: 157; DNWSI: 232; DCPA[Schulthess]: 76[40]; BarBahlul: 513:1; ....
Derivatives:
grbh n.f. skin bottle
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-21-2023
"Torrey thought the Old Syriac gospels were translations made by Jews from Palestine and the Peshitta was also a translation. His own theories of Aramaic originals have been largely rejected by scholars, in large part because of the findings in contemporary Greek texts by Deissmann, Grenfell, and Hunt. Edgar Goodspeed, a linguist and specialist in Semitic languages without peer, extensively criticized Torrey"
In what book(s)? I found a Goodspeed book discussing Torrey re: Acts, but didn't locate a Goodspeed book addressing Torrey's _Our Translated Gospels_ (1936).
"and pointed out how Semiticists disagreed among themselves"
Of course they disagree-- they're humans.
"Torrey’s historical view that all of the New Testament was written before 50 CE is not followed by any critical scholars"
_Documents of the Primitive Church_ by Charles Cutler Torrey (1941), 309pp., on 241-242
https://archive.org/details/documentsofprimi0000torr/page/240/mode/1up
....the fact is of no little importance that we have here, in plain words, an example of the early Christian assertion that the day of verbal inspiration had returned. The claim that John is an inspired prophet and that his book is holy scripture is as clear and emphatic as any words can make it. This brings the date of the book within narrow limits. The absurdity of supposing that this Aramaic document claiming Jewish canonicity could have been put forth after its doctrine had been officially pronounced damnable heresy is obvious. It certainly was published before the year 80. But this is not all; a date before the year 70 is plainly indicated. If the book had been written between 70 and 80 there certainly would have been in it some allusion to the great catastrophe. Silence in regard to it, in view of the author's intense interest in the holy city, is simply inconceivable.
Moreover, the date cannot have been much _before_ 70. The theology of the book has advanced some distance beyond that of our earliest Christian writings. As Swete remarks, pp. cliv f.,
"No one who comes to the Apocalypse fresh from the study of the Gospels and Epistles can fail to recognize that he has passed into another atmosphere.... The Christ of the Apocalypse is the Christ of the Gospels, but a change has passed over Him which is beyond words."
The Church doctrine has progressed.
It is to be observed how the results thus reached, a date shortly before the year 70, confirms the explicit statement of the author of Rev., that he wrote in the time of the sixth emperor before the seventh had come to the throne; that is, in the year 68.
The fact has already been emphasized, that the terror of the Beast is over all the latter half of the book. The horrible scenes of the year 64, in Rome, are fresh in mind. There is no need to conjecture what the steadfast Christians would be called upon to face, on the return of the Beast. The farther away from Nero's reign the book is dated, the more incomprehensible is the amount of space given to this apprehension.
A most important passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning (the first two verses) of chapter 11, where John is commanded to take a reed (Ezek. 40:3 ff.) and measure the temple and the altar; but not to measure the court of the Gentiles, symbolic of the tribulation still to be endured. Jerusalem and the temple are standing, the armies of Titus have not yet entered the city. This was written before the year 70....
=====================================
_Problems of New Testament Translation_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1945), using 'Search inside' for: Aramaic
https://archive.org/details/problemsofnewtes0000good/
Page 21
The word [i.e. raca] has long perplexed translators and interpreters and has led to much speculation. No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported. There is a Hebrew root from which such a word might have arisen, but no occurrence of this form from that root in either Aramaic or Hebrew has been pointed out. Dr. Colwell quotes Augustine as saying that a Jew "told him it was a word without meaning, an interjection expressing indignation."^1
Jennings pg. 211
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/Jennings/page.php?p=211
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Matthew+5:22&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:20260&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&source=khabouris&size=125%25
https://cal.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=rq+N%20&cits=all
rq, rqˀ (rāq, rāqā) n.m. vile person
vile person Gal, CPA, Syr. BR 278:9(1) : דהוה אמ׳ להון רקייה . P Mt5:22 : ܘܟܼܽܠ ܕܿܢܼܐܡܲܪ ܠܲܐܚܘܼܗ̱ܝ ܪܲܩܲܐ whoever says to his brother: vile one!.
Greek ῥακά.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1488[743]; DJPA: 529b; Payne-Smith: ~3972; J. Payne-Smith: 549; DCPA[Schulthess]: 407[197];
======================================
"Goodspeed is trying to make sense of the Greek texts that have ραχα instead of ρακα"
Do you agree with Goodspeed that "No Aramaic word resembling it has been reported"?
Magiera's concordance has 'r-u-q-a' i.e. spit at Jn 9,6.
She lists 'r-q' i.e. spit for
Mt 26,67
27,30
Mk 7,33
8,23
10,34
14,65
15,19
Lk 18,32
Jn 9,6
===============================================
“It probably meant something like ‘vile person’, but I doubt we can recover the exact sense as used by Jesus in his day”
What do you think the Aramaic r-q and r-u-q-h in John 9:6 mean?
John 9:6 (based on Younan)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=John+9:6&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
And when he said these things
he r-q [spat] upon the ground
and mixed clay with r-u-q-h [his spit]
and he rubbed it upon the eyes of that blind (man).
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:20256&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&source=khabouris&size=125%25
http://cal.huc.edu/getlex.php?coord=620430906&word=3
rqq vb. a/u to spit
possibly rather still the etymological rwq in earlier texts
G View a KWIC
to spit Com. TAD C1.1(Ahiqar) .133 : ועל אחר֗[ן י]ה֗נשגון כדבתה ויר{ו}קן באנפוהי but in the end they shall find out his lies and spit in his face. TgJ 1Sam17:43tos : דלא אירוק בך ותטבע ברוקי lest I spit on you and you drown in my spit. P Lv15:8 : ܐܢ ܢܪܘܩ ܗܿܘ ܡܿܢ ܕܕܐܿܒ ܥܠ ܡܿܢ ܕܕܟܐ if someone with an impure emission spits on someone who is clean. P Dt25:9 : ܬܪܘܩ ܒܐ̈ܦܘܗܝ she should spit in his face. BT Šab 145b(17) : ר׳ יוחנן {{ד}}ייק מכותחא דבבלאי PN used to spit at the mention of [lit. from] the k.-dish of the Babylonians. GS 7:19 : mˁ^a^ka ḏraq ruqa mn pumẖ uˁtkamar bilẖ mn riš is there anyone that has spat out spittle from his mouth and gone back and swallowed it anew?. TgEsth2 3:8(3) : וכד חזיין לנא רקקין בארעא when they see us they spit on the ground.
D View a KWIC
to spit much CPA.
C View a KWIC
to spit Syr. JSB2 814:16 : ܬܗܦܘܟ ܬܲܪܸܩ spit it back out.
Gt View a KWIC
1 to be spat on Syr. ES1 282:19 .
2 impers. Syr. Gr 105:20 : ܐܢܕܝܢ ܡܬܪܩܩ ܠܢ ܒܐܦ̈ܝܢ if we are spat on upon our faces.
palpel View a KWIC
to spit CPA.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1490[742]; DJPA: 530a; DJBA: 1094b; Jastrow: 1498; Drower/Macuch: 437b, 424a, 431b; Payne-Smith: 3972; J. Payne-Smith: 549; Levy Ch-W: 2:436; Tal Sam: 853; DCPA[Schulthess]: 407[197]; DJA: 80a;
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:20250&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&source=khabouris&size=125%25
http://cal.huc.edu/getlex.php?coord=620430906&word=9
rwq, rwqˀ (roq, ruqqā) n.m. spit
1 spittle JLAtg, Gal, CPA, Syr, JBAmb, JBA, JBAg, Man, LJLA. TgJ Is50:6 : אַפַי לָא טַמַרִית מֵאִתכְנָעוּ וְרוֹק [=MT פָּנַי לֹא הִסְתַּרְתִּי מִכְּלִמּוֹת וָרֹק]. PalLaws3(1) 101:4 : והיא רקקא קודמוי רוק רב she spits much spittle before him. P Jn9:6 : ܘܲܓܼܒܼܲܠ ܛܼܝܢܵܐ ܡܸܢ ܪܘܼܩܸܗ . JS_Elisha 116:113 : ܒܡܸܠܬܵܐ ܘܪܲܘܩܵܐ ܘܲܒܝܲܡܝܼܢܸܗ ܐܲܣܝܼ ܟܼܐܒܸ̈ܐ He healed pains with a word, spittle, and His right hand. JBABowl 74.1:2 : דנ^י^בש לישניה בפומיה ויתמסי רוקיה בגרגרתי so his tongue dries up in his mouth and his spittle rot in his throat. BT Yev 101b(3) : צריכי דייני למיחזי רוקא כי נפיק מפומא דיבמה the judges must see the spittle as it leaves the mouth of the yevamah. ShPDm 77 : rabun rmabkun ruqa ḏmirtun their leader cast upon you their venomous spittle. PJ Deut25:9 : ומן בתר כדון תירוק קדמוי רוקא נפישא and after that she should spit a lot of spittle in front of him.
2 spitting JLAtg, Syr. TgJ Is50:6 : אַפַי לָא טַמַרִית מֵאִתכְנָעֻו וְרוֹק I did not hide my face from humiliation and spitting.
3 name of a demon JBA. BT San 101a(38) : רוקא דחמת קא חזינא I see the demon, PN, here.
Page refs. in other dictionaries: LS2: 1452[743]; DJPA: 520a; DJBA: 1067a; Jastrow: 1463; Drower/Macuch: 431b; Payne-Smith: ~3972; J. Payne-Smith: 536; Levy Ch-W: 2:435; DCPA[Schulthess]: 395[197]; DJA: 79b;
===============================================
“don’t think about them at all”
Are you aware of any flaws in Torrey’s remarks about the date of Revelation’s composition?
(‘yes: most scholars strenuously disagree’?
‘no: I’m unfamiliar with those remarks of his’?)
===============================================
“Which mss"
_The New Testament in Hebrew: Evidence and Issues_ (2020), 179pp., on 49, 50
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Hebrew-Evidence-Issues/dp/1716048923/
13th Oxford MS Matthew 1:16 "Joseph _father_ of Mary." ....
14th New York MS JTS [Jewish Theological Seminary] "Joseph _father_ of Mary."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8026/why-is-the-genealogy-in-luke-attributed-to-mary#8037
Luke gives Joseph's genealogy, while Matthew gives Mary's
This view is much less common than the former, but it has been observed throughout Christian history. Clement of Alexandria expressed this early view, writing,
"And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of the Lord."9
Victorinus of Pettau also believed this, declaring,
"Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh."10
There is no support for this in the extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew, but proponents of this view believe the text has been corrupted and that Matthew originally referred to two Josephs: one being the husband of Mary and the other her father (this is also used to explain the discrepancy with the Lukan account and why the number differs on 14 vs. 13 generations)....
9 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 21.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.i.xxi.html#vi.iv.i.xxi%E2%80%93p125
Also notable is that Irenaeus refutes this view in Adversus haereses, 3.21.9.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html#ix.iv.xxii%E2%80%93p32
10 Victorinus of Pettau, Apocalypsin, 4.7–10.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.iv.html#vi.ii.iv%E2%80%93p11.4
11 Harold A. Blair, "Matthew 1:16 and the Matthaean Genealogy", Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), 149–154.
=========================================
"At the moment I have no interest in reading Torrey’s remarks on the dating of the book of Revelation. I don’t like the book of Revelation"
The Greek Revelation was translated from Aramaic. If anyone wishes to read some details about the atrocious Greek grammar in the Greek translation, see below.
Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
In regard to the strange Greek constructions Norden, quoted above, truly says that in every case of a barbarism the correct usage appears elsewhere in the book. There is no lack of knowledge of Greek idiom. As for the Greek particles, the manner of their use or absence is like what we see throughout the Greek Bible. Here also there is no proof of ignorance. Charles' explanation is decidedly less plausible than the others.
There is excellent reason, however, for one conclusion he reaches―expressed in similar words by many before him―namely, that “the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely unique.” The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature. It is only in the Greek that they are apparent, for it is the form, not the sense, that is affected.
A few of the more striking solecisms are exhibited here in English translation, so that any reader may see their nature.
1:4. “Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come” (all nom. case).
1:15. “His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gend., dative case) as in a furnace purified (fem. gend., sing. no., gen. case)”
11:3. “My witnesses (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth.”
14:14. “I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a son-of-man (accus.), having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown.”
14:19. “He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem.), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God.”
17:4. “A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things (accus.).”
19:20. “The lake of blazing fire (“fire,” neut.; “blazing,” fem.).
20:2. “And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.), who is the Devil and Satan and bound him.”
21:9. “Seven angels, holding the seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues.”
22:5. “They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.).”
This apparent linguistic anarchy has no explanation on the Greek side. It is hardly surprising that to some readers it should have seemed open defiance of grammar, to others a symptom of mental aberration. Nevertheless there is method to it all. The more grotesque these barbarisms, the more certain it is that they are not due to lack of acquaintance with Greek. Each of the rules broken in the passages here cited is faithfully observed in many other places and shown to be perfectly familiar.
....
In fact, underlying all of the amazing solecisms is seen the wording of the Semitic original. The grammatical monstrosities, recognized in their true nature, testify to the execution of a definite purpose carried through with remarkable consistency. When they are examined, they are found to show grammatical appreciation rather than the lack of it. But it is Aramaic grammar!
(Nevertheless, the ideal of a thoroughly accurate translation was incapable of realization, as we know to our sorrow. No Greek translator of an unpointed Semitic text of the extent of this apocalypse could possibly come through without his considerable sheath of mistranslations. We have no knowledge of any such faultless―or even nearly faultless―achievement.*)
What the Greek translator of Revelation does, in the effort to be exactly faithful, is merely an exaggeration of what is regularly and constantly done in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The translators rendered as they did because of the conception of their task. They were handing down works of high importance, and would assume no unnecessary responsibility. What they―each and all―aimed at was to produce a text which could be understood by the Greek reader and at the same should mirror faithfully every word and phrase of the sacred original. This, the original, was the all-important thing, and the fact was always kept in view. The style of the translation was of no consequence; it was not Greek, nor ever intended to be.
*See _Our Translated Gospels_ [by Torrey], chapter 1; _The Four Gospels_ [by Torrey], pages 265-74.
============================================
"Aramaic was spoken in certain areas but it was not the language of the Jews"
What language is "Akeldama"?
Acts 1:19 (NIV)
Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
============================================
“any current critical scholars who argue for Peshitta primacy?”
Does Glenn David Bauscher count as a ‘current critical scholar’?
According to the Greek mss. of the NT, Jesus is headed to hellfire, had feet that were like pillars, and had breasts.
A mistranslation at Greek Rev 1:13 says Jesus has female breasts.
Rev 1:13 (Common English Bible)
“In the middle of the lampstands I saw someone who looked like the Human One. He wore a robe that stretched down to his feet, and he had a gold sash around his chest.[aj]”
The Greek word used here is mastos and is used exclusively for a woman’s breasts.
Rather than using στῆθος/ stethos/ chest, the Greek mss. for Revelation 1:13 speak of Jesus having μαστός/ mastos/ breasts.
Do you have an explanation of the Greek Revelation’s grammatical monstrosities?
=================================================
Does Janet Magiera count as a ‘current critical scholar’?
How about Metzger?
The Greek translation of the original Aramaic has added glosses that explicitly give translations of Aramaic.
I count 10 glosses in Greek mss. of the gospels (plus 1 gloss in Acts).
Both the Aramaic Peshitta and the Arabic Diatesseron lack those glosses.
Do you think those glosses:
were in the original writing of the Greek, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?
arose during the translation of the Aramaic gospels & Acts into Greek?
Do you think Tatian, when assembling his Diatesseron, used gospels that:
had glosses, and then he deleted the glosses before completing his Diatesseron project?
lacked glosses?
Matthew 27:46 (NIV)
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
Mark 5:41 (NASB)
Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, "Talitha kum!" (which translated means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").
Mark 7:11 (Anderson NT)
https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/7-11.htm
But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, What ever of mine might benefit you, is Corban, (which means, a gift,)
Mark 7:34 (NIV)
He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means "Be opened!").
Mark 10:46 (NIV)
Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means "son of Timaeus"), was sitting by the roadside begging.
John 1:38 (Berean Literal)
Then Jesus having turned and having beheld them following, says to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to Him, "Rabbi" (which being translated is to say Teacher), "where are You staying?"
John 1:41 (Berean Literal)
He first finds the own brother Simon and says to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Christ).
John 1:42 (NIV)
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).
John 4:25 (NIV)
The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
John 9:7 (NASB)
and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
Acts 9:36 (Berean Study)
In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which is translated as Dorcas), who was always occupied with works of kindness and charity.
==================================================
"her academic history? Where did she study? What degrees does she have? Peer-reviewed publications?"
All I found was this:
https://www.lightofword.org/index.php
Janet Magiera is an ordained minister and the founder of Light of the Word Ministry A language student since childhood, Jan fell in love with Aramaic in 1979 while studying under a student of Dr. George Lamsa. She started learning how to understand Aramaic and has not stopped for 40 years. In 2004, Jan became frustrated by the lack of credible and accessible Aramaic translations of the Bible. Aside from Lamsa, there were only a few old English translations from the 1850's. Who wants to teach the Bible using the oldest continuously written language of the Middle East translated into the oldest English ever known? She felt it was past time that an accurate and modern translation be written. At that moment, she began to work on the translation herself, something well-researched, easy to understand, and available to everyone. In 2006, the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Library was born and now includes an interlinear, lexicon, concordance, Messianic version, and parallel translations. Jan has also authored topical books on Biblical subjects, including giving, ministries, the armor of God, Hebrew and Aramaic word pictures, and end-times events.
"was not a Peshitta primacist"
Agreed. Is Metzger a "current critical scholar"?
How about Wallace?
"those glosses: were in the original writing of the Greek, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?"
"That sounds reasonable"
Suppose one document is had in 2 different languages.
The version of the document in language X contains glosses.
The version of the document in language Z lacks those glosses.
Does the presence of glosses, and does the absence of glosses, indicate anything about the original language of composition?
Does the presence of untranslated transliterations in a document suggest that that document:
is in the original language of composition?
is a translation?
"the glosses wouldn’t be needed in Syriac"
Were the explanations in the verses below needed?
Matthew 1:23 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-23.htm
"Behold the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bear a son, and they shall call his Name
Emmanuail, which is translated, 'Our God is with us'".
Mark 15:34 (Bauscher)
biblehub.com/hpbt/mark/15.htm
And in the ninth hour Yeshua cried out in a loud voice, and he said:
“Eil, Eil, lemana Shabaqthani”, which is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Mat 27:33 (Magiera)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new-parallel-versions-search
And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is interpreted, "The Skull."
Mar 15:22 (Magiera)
And they brought him to Golgotha, the place that is interpreted, The Skull.
Joh 19:17 (Magiera)
bearing his cross, to a place that was called 'The Skull,' but in Hebrew is called Golgotha,
Joh 20:16 (Magiera)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new-parallel-versions-search
Jesus said to her, "Mary." And she turned around and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbuli," which means Teacher.
Hebrews 7 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/hebrews/7.htm
1 This Melchizedek is The King of Shalim, Priest of The Most High God, and he met Abraham when he returned from the massacre of Kings and blessed him.
2 And Abraham distributed to him a tenth of everything that he had with him; but his name is interpreted, “King of Righteousness”
and again “King of Shalim”,
which is, “King of Peace”,
//////////////////////////////////
using google translate on Dutch from http://dukhrana.com
John 20:16 - Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabbuli!” that is, “My Master.”
in Hebrew!] - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek NA28. The text is missing from the reading of the Greek MHT and TR.
Rabbuli!] - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'Rabboeni', which is not a Greek term of address, by the way, but a transcription in Greek of the Aramaic term of address, whereby we should know that in Aramaic 'Rabbuli' and 'Rabboeni mean the same. The fact that we read in this verse "in Hebrew" (‹i.e. in the Aramaic Peshitta and in the Greek NA28, but not in the Greek MHT and TR›), has to do with the fact that Aramaic was written in Hebrew letters.
Matthew 27:33 - (When) they came to the place called 'Gagulta', meaning 'The Skull',
Gagulta - this is the Hebrew name according to Jh. 19:17 after the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta, but essentially that name is Aramaic so that in this verse we find two Aramaic words for 'skull', namely, the word used here ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ (‹qarqafta›) translated as 'Skull' and the word ܓ݁ܳܓ݂ܽܘܠܬ݁ܳܐ (‹Gagulta›).
In the Hebrew OT there are two Hebrew words for 'skull'. One of them is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (‹gulgolet - H1538›). See also the note to Jh. 19:17. The names 'Golgotha' and 'Gagulta' differ in sound. We suspect that the names "Golgotha" and "Gagulta" represent two varieties of Aramaic, possibly the Aramaic of Jerusalem and that of Galilee.
The Skull - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'The Place of the Skull'.
John 19:17 - He carried his cross to the place called 'The Skull', but in Hebrew it is called 'Gagulta'.
He carried his cross - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek MHT and TR. The reading of the Greek NA28 reads: 'He Himself bore his cross'.
The Skull - this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: 'The Place of the Skull'.
Hebrew - According to Jastrow's dictionary of Aramaic, the word "Hebrew" in Aramaic can also mean "Aramaic", the language of the Peshitta. Aramaic was and is written by the Jews in Hebrew letters.
Gagulta - this is the Hebrew name according to Jh. 19:17 after the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta, but essentially that name is Aramaic so that we find in this verse two Aramaic words for 'skull', namely the word used here ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ (‹qarqaftā›) translated as 'Skull' and the word ܓ݁ܳܓ݂ܽܘܠܬ݁ܳܐ (‹Gāgūlṫā›).
In the Hebrew OT there are two Hebrew words for 'skull'. One of them is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (‹gūlgolēt - H1538›). .... The names 'Golgotha' and 'Gagulta' differ in sound. We suspect that the names "Golgotha" and "Gagulta" represent two varieties of Aramaic, possibly the Aramaic of Jerusalem and that of Galilee.
======================================================
Are you aware of any mistakes in the Peshitta?
[Paul Younan]"point me to a mistake in the Aramaic Peshitta which arose from a grammatical error while translating from the Greek. In your model, there should be plenty that exist. ....point me to one error in the Peshitta which can only be explained by the Aramaic translator making a grammatical mistake that could have only happened if he had a Greek original in front of him."
==========================================
Of these 4 renditions of John 1:42, which originated:
first?
second?
third?
a) the Aramaic behind:
John 1:42 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/john/1-42.htm
And he brought him to Yeshua
and Yeshua gazed at him and he said:
“You are Shimeon, son of Yona;
you shall be called Kaypha.”
b) the Greek behind:
John 1:42 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/john/1-42.htm
And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said,
"You are Simon son of John.
You will be called Cephas"
(which, when translated, is Peter).
c) the Aramaic behind:
_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, S = Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus, on 682
https://www.amazon.com/Old-Syriac-Gospels-Comparative-Translations/dp/1931956189/
S1.42 And he led him and came to our Lord.
Our Lord looked at him and said to him,
You are Simon bar Jonah.
You will be called Cepha,
which translated into Greek is Peter.
d) the Hebrew behind:
_The Hebrew Gospel of John_ version 1.1 (April 2021), 84pp., on 6
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Gospel-John-Justin-Rensburg/dp/B09X512FZH/
And he brought him unto Yeshua.
And Yeshua looked at him, saying,
"You are Shimon the son of [Yonah],^3
you will [be] called Keipha"
(meaning rock).
3: Hebrew name for 'Jonah.'
=========================================
"The attempt to establish an Aramaic underpinning to the Greek NT is really more apologetics than textual criticism"
How would you characterize an "attempt to establish" a Greek "underpinning to the" NT?
"An effort to establish a connection to the historical Jesus that is otherwise debatable"
How so? The Greek translation is a reasonable translation.
=========================================
“Metzger (deceased 2007)”
So Metzger isn’t a “current critical scholar.”
“know of any current critical scholars who argue for Peshitta primacy?”
No.
“No, not necessarily.”
Does the field of textual criticism have any dictums about glosses?
“No and No, not necessarily”
Does the field of textual criticism have any dictums about untranslated transliterations?
"Whose text are you translating from Dutch?"
http://dukhrana.com
Peshitta Tool
check the 2 boxes for:
Evangelische Bijbel Vertaling (EBV) Dutch Peshitta translation
with options: include footnotes
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-24-2023
When Mt 1:16 and 1:19 were originally written, do you think it had the same word in both locations to describe a 'Joseph'?
Matthew 1:16
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1-16.htm
ton/ τὸν/ the
435 [e] andra/ ἄνδρα
Marias/ Μαρίας/ of Mary
Matthew 1:19
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1-19.htm
Iōsēph/ Ἰωσὴφ/ Joseph
de/ δὲ/ now
ho/ ὁ/ the
435 [e] anēr/ ἀνὴρ
autēs/ αὐτῆς/ of her
Matthew 1:16 (REV)
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matt/1/nav16/1
and Jacob fathered Joseph the father^c of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
About the Revised English Version
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/info/1
The REV project has now gone on for over twenty years, and many different people have been involved over the years. Translation work is continuing steadily in both the Old and New Testaments, and the commentary is constantly expanding.
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matthew/chapter1/16
and Jacob fathered Joseph the father^a of Mary,
from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
________________________________________
a[16]
The Greek is usually translated “husband”
________________________________________
“father.” The Greek is anēr (#435 ἀνήρ), and means “an adult human male.” Anēr is generally assumed to mean “husband” in this verse, but that cannot be the case. For one thing, the list of the three sets of 14 generations that go from Abraham to Christ (vv. 2-16), makes this impossible. If Joseph is the husband of Mary, there would only be 13 generations in the last list of “14 generations.” Also, the Aramaic text reads differently in this verse than it does in verse 19, and in verse 19 Joseph is unmistakably referred to as the “husband” of Mary. The difference in the vocabulary indicates a difference in the relationship.
The Gospel of Matthew contains the genealogy from David to Jesus via his mother Mary. In contrast, the Gospel of Luke contains the genealogy from David to Jesus via his adopted father, Joseph. There has been a lot of controversy about the genealogy of Jesus because at first reading, both Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 seem to indicate a genealogy that comes through Joseph, which is confusing. For one thing, Joseph ends up with two different fathers, “Jacob” (Matt. 1:16) and “Heli” (Luke 3:23), and Mary, who is the blood link between David and Jesus, ends up having no genealogy in the Bible.
Different scholars have….
Mary does have a genealogy in the Bible, and it is in the Gospel of Matthew. However, it can seem like Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph. However, if Matthew’s genealogy is about Joseph, then there are some significant problems in the biblical text. One is that Joseph would then have two contradictory genealogies in the Bible while Mary had no genealogy. An even larger problem, however, is a mathematical one. If Joseph is counted as the “husband” of Mary (Matt. 1:16), there are only 13 generations from the carrying away to Babylon to Christ, and not 14 generations, as Matthew 1:17 says there are: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are 14 generations, and from David to the carrying away to Babylon are 14 generations, and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ are 14 generations.”
The first set of 14 generations, from Abraham to David, are: 1) Abraham, 2) Isaac, 3) Jacob, 4) Judah, 5) Perez, 6) Hezron, 7) Ram, 8) Amminadab, 9) Nahshon, 10) Salmon, 11) Boaz, 12) Obed, 13) Jesse, 14) David.
The second set of 14 generations, from David to the carrying away to Babylon, are:
1) Solomon, 2) Rehoboam, 3) Abijah, 4) Asa, 5) Jehoshaphat, 6) Jehoram, 7) Uzziah, 8) Jotham, 9) Ahaz, 10) Hezekiah, 11) Manasseh, 12) Amon, 13) Josiah, 14) Jeconiah
When it comes to the last list of 14 generations, however, if we count the generations as they are translated in most Bibles, there are only 13 generations although Scripture says there are 14 generations. 1) Shealtiel, 2) Zerubbabel, 3) Abiud, 4) Eliakim, 5) Azor, 6) Zadok, 7) Akim, 8) Eliud, 9) Eleazar, 10) Mattan, 11) Jacob, 12) Joseph (the husband of Mary), 13) Jesus.
The problem with the list is obvious and has been pointed out by many commentators: it has only 13 generations, not 14 like Scripture says. Some scholars have tried to solve the problem by doing such things as counting names twice, but that hardly does justice to the text.
It was very important that Matthew portray a pattern of three sets of 14 generations. We know that because if we count the actual generations, there were more than just 42 people (3 times 14) from Abraham to Christ. To make the pattern fit, some people had to be left out of Matthew’s list. When the genealogy in Matthew is compared with the other genealogies in the Bible, it is clear that there are people missing from Matthew’s genealogy. For example, in Matthew 1:8, between Jehoram and Uzziah, there are actually three unmentioned generations. Jehoram begat Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), who begat Joash (also called Jehoash; 2 Kings 11:2, 21), who begat Amaziah (2 Kings 12:21). These three names do not appear in Matthew, and there are some other unmentioned names as well.
Although there are some names missing from Matthew’s list, it was not essential to give every name in a biblical genealogy of kings. Many genealogical lists in the Bible have names missing for various reasons. What was important to Matthew is that he set forth the genealogy of Jesus in a pattern of three sets of 14 generations from Abraham to Christ. Therefore, to have only 13 names in the last set of 14 tells us something is very wrong. But if we closely examine the list, we see that it does have 14 names, and thus 14 generations if each name represents a generation.
Mary is not usually counted in the list of 14 because she and Joseph are usually thought of as husband and wife and thus in the same generation. However, there is good evidence that “Joseph” is not only the name of Mary’s husband, but also the name of her father as well. That would not be unusual in the biblical culture, because Joseph was a common name. For example, in the Roman Catholic Bible, which includes the Apocrypha, there are 16 different people named Joseph, not counting Mary’s father, who would make 17.
If the “Joseph” in Matthew 1:16 was the father of Mary, not her husband, then there would be 14 generations from Babylon to Christ, just like Scripture says there is: 1) Shealtiel, 2) Zerubbabel, 3) Abiud, 4) Eliakim, 5) Azor, 6) Zadok, 7) Akim, 8) Eliud, 9) Eleazar, 10) Mattan, 11) Jacob, 12) Joseph (the father of Mary), 13) Mary, 14) Jesus.
That Matthew contains Mary’s genealogy and Luke contains Joseph’s genealogy makes sense because Mary’s genealogy in Matthew does not mention Joseph, her husband, who was not part of her genealogy anyway, nor does Joseph’s genealogy in Luke mention Mary, who had nothing to do with his genealogy. In Mary’s genealogy in Matthew, four other women are mentioned, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “Uriah’s wife,” emphasizing the role that women play in a genealogy. Joseph’s genealogy in Luke does not include any women but does include two of his ancestors who were also named Joseph.
There is still one important thing to resolve. Most versions translate Matthew 1:16 to say that Joseph was the “husband” of Mary, not the “father” of Mary. However, we believe that “husband” is a mistranslation. The Greek word translated “husband” is aner, and means an adult male. Usually when aner is used with the phrase “of [a woman’s name], such as in “Joseph, the aner of Mary,” it refers to the woman’s husband. But there is good evidence that in this verse aner should be translated “father.” First, translating it “husband” creates a contradiction in the Word of God because then there are not 14 generations from Babylon to Christ. Second, it creates a confusing situation in the Word because both Matthew and Luke then refer to Joseph’s genealogy, such that Joseph ends up with two different fathers.
Thankfully, the Aramaic text of Matthew has good evidence that Matthew 1:16 should read “father.” In the Greek text, both Matthew 1:16 and 1:19 use the word aner (“man” or “husband”). Matthew 1:19 clearly refers to Joseph as the “husband” of Mary because it speaks of Joseph thinking of divorcing her. However, the Aramaic text of Matthew does not use the same word in Matthew 1:16 and 1:19, but has two different words, and thus makes a distinction between the two men. In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is gavra, which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband,” while in Matthew 1:19 the word is bala, which is “man” or “husband.” Thus the Aramaic text preserves the truth that there is a difference between the “Joseph” of verse 16, the “mighty man” of Mary, and the “Joseph” of verse 19, the “husband” of Mary.
Once we realize that “Joseph” is the name of both the father and the husband of Mary, the Word of God fits together perfectly. Both the genealogies of Mary and Joseph are in the Bible so that everyone could see they were both descendants of David and thus Jesus was indeed, “the Son of David.” Scripture also shows in other places that both Joseph and Mary are from David (Joseph: Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4. Mary: Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3). Luke contains the genealogy of Jesus via his adopted father, Joseph, and never mentions Mary, who was not part of Joseph’s genealogy. Matthew contains the genealogy of Jesus through his mother Mary, and never mentions her husband Joseph. Joseph has two ancestors also named Joseph in his genealogy, while four other women are included in Mary’s genealogy. Last but not least, the three sets of 14 generations mentioned in Matthew are all complete when we realize Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is Mary’s father.
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-25-2023
Regarding these 4 sets of passages, which passage rendition originated:
first?
second?
A) the Aramaic underlying:
1Co 16:22 (Magiera, who translated the Aramaic 'm-r-n a-th-a' as "our Lord comes")
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new-parallel-versions-search
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=1Corinthians+16:22&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
Whoever does not love our Lord Jesus Christ will be cursed.
Our Lord comes.
B) the Greek underlying this, with the Greek "Μαρὰν ἀθά" being an untranslated transliteration of Aramaic)
1 Cor 16:22
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/16-22.htm
https://biblehub.com/texts/1_corinthians/16-22.htm
(Webster's Bible) If any man loveth not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maran-atha.
(NA28) εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Μαρὰν / μαρανα ἀθά / θα.
(RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005) Εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν χριστόν, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Μαρὰν ἀθά.
====================
a) the Aramaic underlying:
Mark 14:36 (Bauscher, with the Aramaic having "A-b-a, A-b-i")
https://biblehub.com/mark/14-36.htm
And he said, “Father, my Father, you can do everything;
let this cup pass from me,
yet not my own will, but yours.”
b) the Greek underlying:
Mark 14:36 (Berean Literal, with the Greek Ἀββᾶ/ Abba being a transliteration of Aramaic, followed by Patēr/ Πατήρ/ Father)
https://biblehub.com/mark/14-36.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/14-36.htm
And He was saying, "Abba, Father, all things _are_ possible to You;
take away this cup from Me;
but not what I will, but what You _will_."
====================
A') the Aramaic underlying:
Romans 8:15 (Etheridge, with the Aramaic having "A-b-a, A-b-u-n")
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Romans+8:15&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
For we have not received the spirit of servitude again unto fear,
but we have received the Spirit of the adoption
[Rucho da-simath benayo: The Spirit of the constituting of sons.] of sons,
by whom we cry, Father, our Father!
B') the Greek underlying:
Romans 8:15 (Berean Literal, with the Greek Ἀββᾶ/ Abba being a transliteration of Aramaic, followed by "ho/ ὁ /who, which, what, that
Patēr/ Πατήρ/ Father")
https://biblehub.com/romans/8-15.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/8-15.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/3739.htm
For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to fear,
but you have received _the_ Spirit of divine adoption as sons,
by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"
====================
a') the Aramaic underlying:
Galatians 4:6 (Etheridge, with the Aramaic having "A-b-a, A-b-u-n")
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Galatians+4:6&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
And because you are sons,
Aloha hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,
who crieth, Father, our Father.
b') the Greek underlying:
Galatians 4:6 (Berean Literal, with the Greek Ἀββᾶ/ Abba being a transliteration of Aramaic, followed by "ho/ ὁ /who, which, what, that
Patēr/ Πατήρ/ Father")
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/4-6.htm
And because you are sons,
God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,
crying out, "Abba, Father!"
======================================================
"The gospels were originally written in Greek"
Evidence?
"So-called 'Aramaisms' in the Greek text actually speak against an Aramaic original"
How so?-- could you elaborate?
"Attempts to invent an Aramaic literary layer are efforts to build a chain of transmission back to a Palestinian milieu and a connection to the historical Jesus"
Do you think there was a 'Q'?
If 'yes,' what language(s) was it in?
_An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke_
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521817234?
"this is apologetics not textual criticism"
Applying a label does nothing to answer any of the questions I posed.
Do you think there were, or weren't, "Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel"?
_Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel_
https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Sources-Society-Testament-Monograph/dp/0521036135/
This book goes behind the Greek text of the Gospel of Mark and reconstructs some of its sources in the original Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke. This work has been made possible by the publication of all the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, which provide a basis of Jewish Aramaic for the right period. By reconstructing Aramaic sources and interpreting them in their original context, this book raises the level of proof that Jesus said and did some of the things attributed to him in our earliest sources.
============================================
“It is an open question what Mark’s sources were”
OK.
“textual analysis leads scholars to think that the gospel itself was composed in Greek”
What are the 2 strongest lines of evidence “that the gospel itself was composed in Greek”?
Are you aware of any evidence that Jesus spoke any Greek?
_Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research_ by Stanley E. Porter
https://www.amazon.com/Criteria-Authenticity-Historical-Jesus-Research-Testament/dp/184127089X/
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-25-2023
_New Chapters in New Testament Study_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1937), 223pp., on 157-159
https://archive.org/details/newchaptersinnew008790mbp
The weakness of the Aramaic method is shown by its treatment of the word pygme, "with the fist," in Mark 7:3.
How do you think Mark 7:3 originally read?:
"unless they ceremonially [literally: "with a fist"] wash [their] hands"?
"unless they carefully wash their hands"?
How do you think Lk 21:12-13 ought read?
How about: Jn 4:35-36? Jn 7:21-22? Lk 24:9-10?
Do you see any flaws in the Torrey below?
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay04mrk.htm
Mark 7:3:
TEXT: "unless they ceremonially wash [their] hands"
EVIDENCE: A B D K L X Theta Pi f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect most lat syr(h)margin
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSVn NASV NIV NEBn TEV
RANK: A
NOTES: "unless they wash [their] hands"
EVIDENCE: Delta syr(s) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: RSV* NEB
NOTES: "unless they frequently wash [their] hands"
EVIDENCE: S W three lat vg syr(p,h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NEBn
COMMENTS: The word translated "ceremonially" literally means "with a fist." Since the exact ceremony referred to is unknown, some copyists omitted the word while others replaced it with a word that makes more sense.
4435. pugmé
https://biblehub.com/greek/4435.htm
pugmé: the fist
Original Word: πυγμή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pugmé
Phonetic Spelling: (poog-may')
Definition: the fist
Usage: the fist.
Mark 7:3, http://dukhrana.com
(Etheridge) For all the Jihudoyee and Pharishee, unless they carefully wash their hands, do not eat, because they hold the tradition of the elders;
(Murdock) For all the Jews and the Pharisees, unless they carefully wash their hands do not eat; because they hold fast the tradition of the Elders.
===============
_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 4-5
https://archive.org/details/ourtranslatedgos0000torr
The great freedom in the order of words of the Aram. sentence, and especially the manner of emphasizing a word by putting it at the beginning or end of a clause, occasionally produced ambiguity, as the translator rendered word by word. In this way arose the strange reading in Mk. 7:3, where the Jews are said to wash their hands "with the fist."
Hence also the "already," which in the Aram. of Jn. 4 stood at the end of vs. 35, was by the Grk. translator made to stand at the beginning of vs. 36. Argument for the date of the Gospel has been based on this translator's error-- for such it certainly is.
Another similar instance is the false position of the phrase "because of this"... which now forms the beginning of Jn. 7:22, whereas it was intended to end the preceding verse. Ordinarily, indeed, it stands at the head of its sentence or clause.
The frequently abrupt beginning of the Aram. sentence, without introductory conjunction or adverb, sometimes misleads the Grk. translator, where the context leaves room for doubt as to the connection intended. An example is Lk. 21:12 f., where the parallels in Mk. and Mt. [Mt 10:18, Mk 13:9] make it certain that the true reading is: "Before kings and governors, for my name's sake, you will be brought for testimony."
A more important instance is the passage Lk. 24:9 ff., in which the honor of being the first to bring to the disciples the news of the resurrection is by the Grk. translator taken away from Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and given to "the other women."
CVB 2.3, Luke
21:12 But before all these things,
they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you,
delivering you up to synagogues and prisons,
bringing you before kings and governors for my name’s sake.
21:13 It will turn out as a testimony for you.
Lk 21:12-13 (based on Younan)
But before all these things,
they will lay hands upon you and persecute you,
and they will deliver you to the assemblies and to the prisons,
and they will bring you before malka [kings] and governors because of my name,
but it will be to you for a testimony.
Mark 7:3 (King James)
https://biblehub.com/mark/7-3.htm
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Pulpit Commentary
https://biblehub.com/mark/7-3.htm
Verse 3. - Except they wash their hands oft. The Greek word here rendered "oft" is πυγμῇ: literally, with the fist, i.e. with the closed hand, rubbing one against the other. This word has caused a vast amount of criticism; and the difficulty of explaining it seems to have led to the adoption of a conjectural reading (πυκνῷς or πυκνῇ) rendered "oft;" crebro in the Vulgate. But the Syriac Peshito Version renders the Greek word by a word which means "diligently," and it is interesting and helpful, as a matter of exegesis, to know that it also renders the Greek word (ἐπιμελῶς) in Luke 15:8 by the same Syriac synonym, "diligently."
4435. pugmé
https://biblehub.com/greek/4435.htm
pugmé: the fist
Original Word: πυγμή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pugmé
Phonetic Spelling: (poog-may')
Definition: the fist
Usage: the fist.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from pux (the fist)
Definition
the fist
John 4:35-36 (NABRE)
35 Do you not say, ‘In four months the harvest will be here’? I tell you, look up and see the fields ripe for the harvest. 36 The reaper is already[b] receiving his payment and gathering crops for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper can rejoice together.
b: Already: this word may go with the preceding verse rather than with Jn 4:36.
John 7 (Berean Literal Bible)
https://biblehub.com/blb/john/7.htm
21 Jesus answered and said to them, “I did one work, and you all marvel.
22 Because of the fact that Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers) also on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.
CVB, Lk 24
24:8 They remembered his words, 24:9 returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 24:10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles.
Luke 24 (based on Younan)
8. And they remembered his words. 9. And they returned from the grave and told all these things to the eleven and to the rest. 10. Now they were Maryam of Magdala and Yokan and Maryam the mother of Yaqub and others who were with them, those who had told the Shelikha [Apostles].
=====================================================
Do you agree with this Goodspeed?:
_New Chapters in New Testament Study_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1937), 223pp., on 165
https://archive.org/details/newchaptersinnew008790mbp
The advocates of the Aramaic school.... give us no list of Aramaic works created in Palestine in the first half of the first century. There is no record of any written composition in Aramaic at that time.
_Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic_ (2015), 265pp.
https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Qumran-Aramaic-Edward-Cook/dp/1575063417/
_Classifying the Aramaic Texts From Qumran: A Statistical Analysis of Linguistic Features_, Library of Second Temple Studies 89 (2017), 350pp.
https://www.amazon.com/Classifying-Aramaic-texts-Qumran-Statistical/dp/0567667820/
_Vision, Narrative, and Wisdom in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran_ (2019)
https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Narrative-Wisdom-Aramaic-Qumran/dp/9004413707/
_A Handbook of the Aramaic Scrolls from the Qumran Caves: Manuscripts, Language, and Scribal Practices_, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 140 (2023)
https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Aramaic-Scrolls-Qumran-Caves/dp/9004513787/
This book provides the first comprehensive treatment of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls from the caves of Qumran. These nearly one hundred scrolls open a window onto a vibrant period of Jewish history for which we previously had few historical sources. Scholars and advanced students will find a general introduction to the corpus, detailed, richly-illustrated profiles of individual scrolls, and up-to-date studies of their Aramaic language and scribal practices. The goal of the book is to foster and support further study of these scrolls against the historical backdrop of early Judaism and ancient Mediterranean scribal cultures.
==========================================
"constantly posting quotes from scholars... that do not actually agree with your position"
And I have no problem doing that.
Do you agree with Goodspeed that "the Peshitto Syriac version of the gospels" is "dated about A.D. 411"?
Are you aware of any instances of "interpolation and accretion" present in the Peshitta? (and if 'yes,' what are some of those instances?)
_New Chapters in New Testament Study_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1937), 223pp., on 161
https://archive.org/stream/newchaptersinnew008790mbp/newchaptersinnew008790mbp_djvu.txt
....the Peshitto Syriac version of the gospels, which modern learning under the leadership of Burkitt has dated about A.D. 411. They had previously been translated by J. W. Etheridge, London, 1846 (the rest of the New Testament following in 1849), and by J. Murdock, New York, 1851. Its text is far from primitive, being strongly characterized by conflation, that is, the combination of variant readings drawn from different earlier types of text. It is also rich in interpolation and accretion ; so that it is difficult to see how anyone can suppose it original.
========================================
"can’t name any critical scholars that agree with your position"
AFAIK, none of them has as of yet been persuaded by what I've presented.
"despise the work of scholars?"
Not that I know of.
You've studied Mark. What are the 2 strongest lines of evidence “that the gospel itself [i.e. Mark] was composed in Greek”?
_The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ by Henry Snyder Gehman (1888-1981) (1970), on 341-342 after using the search option for "aramaic"
https://archive.org/details/newwestminsterdi0000gehm/
Various scholars (e.g., C.F. Burney and J.A. Montgomery) have suggested an Aramaic origin of the Gospels, but the most complete presentation of this theory has been worked out by C.C. Torrey (_The Four Gospels, A New Translation_, 1933), who maintains that the Aramaisms in the Gospels and the first half of The Acts are not due to bilingual authors who thought in Aramaic and wrote barbarous Greek, but that they are due to translations from Aramaic documents no longer extant. He believes that accounts of the life, words, and works of Christ were put into writing almost immediately after the crucifixion (cf. Luke 1:1-2).
....
With the exception of Luke, chs. 1; 2, and John, ch. 21, the Aramaic idiom is everywhere present in the Gospels; various difficulties can be clarified by turning the Greek into Aramaic, and in many cases the interpretation of a word or passage is simplified by considering the meaning of the supposed Aramaic original. Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, and the Gospels reflect the atmosphere of Palestine.
To the literary critics this theory of the Aramaic origins was revolutionary. Yet it is a refreshing contribution to N.T. studies, because it is based on sound philology and does not lead into the involved study of interior sources or documents. While it definitely throws light upon difficult passages, it has a special merit in projecting the written sources to a period very close to the time of our Lord and thus supporting the impression of authenticity and, by inference, the trustworthiness of the records. Whatever may be thought of this theory, at any rate it can be employed to support a plausible hypothesis that the Greek sources behind the Gospels in Greek are based upon Aramaic documents and not merely on oral traditions in Aramaic.
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-26-2023
"If scholars who’ve spent their whole lives studying these issues don’t find your arguments persuasive, why do you? .... Is it arrogance?"
Maybe so.
Do you see anything erroneous here?:
_The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels_ by Frank Zimmermann (1979), 244pp., on ix
https://archive.org/details/aramaicoriginoff0000zimm/mode/2up?q=Torrey
The relation between the Greek text and the underlying Aramaic is of crucial importance, if we wish to go back to the primacy and significance of the Gospel report. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so did his disciples. The transmission of his sayings and the reports of his activities were in Aramaic. It is imperative to recover, as best one can, the original saying or episode in the Aramaic language wherein it was cast. The Greek Gospels abound in bizarre locutions and unintelligible happenings. This book presents some two hundred new readings as retroversions from Aramaic that clarify many Gospel problems.
The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956). Before and after him have been scholars who have dealt with these problems, either in an incomplete or fragmentized fashion (see the bibliography). His work however fell short of completeness; as a pioneering effort, in the nature of the case, some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct.
on 4-5:
Another group of scholars, among whom C. C. Torrey was the most vocal and vigorous exponent, comes out flatly with the proposition that the Four Gospels (with the exception of Jn. 21,^3 Lk. 1-2,^4 and the Mk. ending 16.9-20), including Acts up to 15.35, are translated directly from Aramaic, and from a written Aramaic text. This group differs from the previous views which allow scant Aramaic influence, and only occasional evidence of Aramaic _logia_ in the background. But here there is an impressive group of scholars, among them Wellhausen, Nestle, Rendel Harris, Schlatter, A. Meyer, Burney, Montgomery, De Zwaan, Wensinck, [perhaps a loose association as they may differ from each other], who maintain that the Gospels are Aramaic documents. A further matter of importance which concerns these scholars is, in what dialect of the Aramaic were the Gospels composed. Was it Judean Aramaic, Galilean, or the so-called Christian Palestinian Aramaic, or was it Samaritan Aramaic, or perhaps the Syriac Aramaic? (There is a considerable number of Syriacisms considered valid by such scholars as Wellhausen, Burney, Torrey, and Black.) This question of the dialect will be considered in subsequent pages (pp. 22f.).
My own researches have led me to consider Torrey’s position valid and convincing that the Gospels as a whole were translated from the Aramaic into Greek. The following discussion supports and expands this thesis with new illustrations and examples. Some scholars have thrown stones at the building Torrey constructed, and have broken some windows (cf. Black, _Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts_ 8-9), but the structure stands firm. Torrey’s contributions principally, together with those of Wellhausen, Burney, Montgomery and Black, and some 200 new examples of my own, should make the hypothesis of the Aramaic substrate irrefutable. There are now some 500 pieces of evidence. In this connection, by curious contrast, it is remarkable that in many other instances, as in the books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the evidence for the original language of a book may be a mere five or six examples, yet deemed sufficient for an editor to bring in a verdict.
on 7-8:
Torrey in his _Our Translated Gospels_ offered some 130 examples of evidence showing mistranslation of the Aramaic text on the part of the Greek translator, of which some 30 examples have a scribal error of some kind. He limited the number expressly, he says, for the understanding of the general reader, as the purpose was to show via repeated translation that good natural sense appeared where there was non-sense. While some scholars have cavilled at some of the examples, the main contention was brilliantly conceived, and his evidence for the most part holds. In all fairness, it cannot be cavalierly dismissed.
======================================================
"I have very little patience for those who are arrogant without doing any of the difficult work required to intelligently discuss scholarship"
What's your attitude toward individuals "who are arrogant" after having done "the difficult work required to intelligently discuss scholarship"?
review of
_The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary_ by Robert Alter
https://www.librarything.com/work/22363361/reviews/202749887
Alter's translation makes use of the Septuagint as well as the Masoretic text and he uses historical evidence outside of traditional Jewish sources to determine meaning.... his commentary is extremely informative regarding his choices and his reasoning, and was enlightening. He does consider himself to be *the* expert--there's a touch of arrogance--but his opinions are interesting.
"_Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel_ by Maurice Casey.... Maybe you should read this book before asking me any additional questions"
LXX Isaiah 29:12
Oxford NETS - New English Translation of the Septuagint
https://archive.org/details/lxxnets/00-front-nets/
https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
PDF: https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf
And this book will be given into the hands of an unlearned man,
and one will say to him, "Read this,"
and he will say, "I am not learned."
======================================================
"the Gospels generally follow the LXX rather than the MT (e.g., Mark 7:6-7"
Mark 7:6-7 lacks the LXX Brenton's and LXX Swete's mention of 'draw near with their mouth'-- material that is distinct from the verbiage about 'honor with their lips.'
(LXX NETS lacks a mention of mouths that's in addition to 'lips.')
What elements are you looking at in saying Mark 7:6-7 "follow[s] the LXX"?
(merely the 'in vain'? LXX Swete appears to lack that. OTOH, LXX Brenton and NETS have it. Young's Literal suggests to me that the Masoretic is corrupted there. I wonder if Robert Alter has a footnote on the verse.)
Mark 7 (Berean Literal)
https://biblehub.com/blb/mark/7.htm
6 And He said to them,
“Isaiah prophesied rightly concerning you hypocrites,
as it has been written:
‘This people honors Me with the lips,
but their heart is kept far away from Me;
7 and they worship Me in vain,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
Mark 7 (Bauscher)
https://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/mark/7.htm
6 But he said to them,
“Isaiah the Prophet prophesied beautifully of you impostors,
just as it is written:
'This people honors me with its lips,
but their heart is very far from Me.'
7 'And in vain they pay reverence to me
as they teach doctrines of commandments of the sons of men.'
Isaiah 29:13 (JPS Tanakh 1917)
https://biblehub.com/jps/isaiah/29.htm
And the Lord said:
Forasmuch as this people draw near,
And with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me,
But have removed their heart far from Me,
And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;
Isaiah 29:13 (Robert Alter, searching for: lips heart
on
_The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, Volume 3_
https://books.google.com/books?id=S75SDwAAQBAJ&;
And the Master said,
Inasmuch as this people approached with its mouth
and with its lips honored Me
but kept its heart far from Me,
and their reverence for Me was a commandment of men learned by rote,
Isaiah 29:13 (Young's Literal)
https://biblehub.com/ylt/isaiah/29.htm
And the Lord saith:
Because drawn near hath this people, with its mouth,
And with its lips they have honoured Me,
And its heart it hath put far off from Me,
And their fear of Me is --
A precept of men is taught!
Isaiah 29:13 (based on interlinear)
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/29-13.htm
Therefore said Yahweh,
Because inasmuch as draw near this people with their mouths
and with their lips honor Me
but their hearts have removed far from Me
and is their fear toward Me by the commandment of men taught
LXX Isaiah 29:13 (Brenton)
https://biblehub.com/sep/isaiah/29.htm
And the Lord has said,
This people draw nigh to me with their mouth,
and they honour me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me:
but in vain do they worship me,
teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
LXX Isaiah 29:13
Oxford NETS - New English Translation of the Septuagint
https://archive.org/details/lxxnets/00-front-nets/
https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
PDF: https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf
The Lord said:
These people draw near me;
they honor me with their lips,
while their heart is far from me,
and in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts and teachings.
LXX Isaiah 29:13 (Swete)
https://biblehub.com/sepd/isaiah/29.htm
https://archive.org/details/oldtestamentingr01swet/page/818/mode/2up
καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος Ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ· μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας.
google translate:
And the Lord said,
This people approaches me with their mouths,
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
but they respect the commandments of men and teaching with teachers.
DSS Isaiah 29:13
_The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ (1999), 649pp., on 313
https://archive.org/stream/B-001-001-932/B-001-001-932_djvu.txt
And the Lord said,
Inasmuch as this people draw near to honor me with their mouth
and with their lips,
but have removed their hearts far from me,
and _fear of me_^526 has been _like a human commandment_^527 that has been taught them;
526: 1QIsa^a. _their fear of me_ MT.
527: 1QIsa^a. _a human commandment_ MT.
Peshitta Isaiah 29:13
_The Peshitta Holy Bible Translated_ (2019) by Bauscher
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/isaiah/29.htm
https://www.amazon.com/Peshitta-Holy-Bible-Translated/dp/0359404251/
And LORD JEHOVAH said:
"Because this people approaches me with its mouth
and by its lips it honors me
and its heart is far from me,
and their worship of me was by the commandment and in the teaching of man
Targum Isaiah 29:13
_The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uzziel]_ tr. by C.W.H. Pauli (1871), 226pp., on 94
https://archive.org/stream/chaldeeparaphra00uzzigoog/chaldeeparaphra00uzzigoog_djvu.txt
Wherefore the Lord hath said:
Because I am magnified by the mouth of this people,
and with their lips they do honour me,
but their heart is far from my fear,
and their fear towards me is as the commandment of men teaching _them_:
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-27-2023
"_Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel_ by Maurice Casey.... He has the most disciplined approach to this question and he is very critical of Torrey, eg, on pp 19-26"
In looking over pages 19, 22-25 of
_Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel_ by Maurice Casey
https://books.google.com/books?id=oxlrUXf7xr4C&;
I noticed Casey discussing a mere 4 of Torrey's 20 alleged instances of "Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic" (specifically, Lk 7:45, Jn 7:38, Mk 7:3, and Lk 16:18/Mk 10:12).
Goodspeed was commended to me:
"Edgar Goodspeed, a linguist and specialist in Semitic languages without peer, extensively criticized Torrey and pointed out how Semiticists disagreed among themselves (DMI)." - https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-manuscripts-of-the-new-testament/the-peshitta/page-11/#p28485
Casey criticizes Goodspeed on 25-26.
Do you agree with this Goodspeed?:
_New Chapters in New Testament Study_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1937), 223pp., on 165
https://archive.org/details/newchaptersinnew008790mbp
The advocates of the Aramaic school.... give us no list of Aramaic works created in Palestine in the first half of the first century. There is no record of any written composition in Aramaic at that time.
======================================================
"Goodspeed (1937).... 'The advocates of the Aramaic school.... give us no list of Aramaic works created in Palestine in the first half of the first century. There is no record of any written composition in Aramaic at that time.'"
"At the time, Goodspeed was right.... Goodspeed should have acknowledged hints of contemporary Aramaic literature. Instead his work on contemporary Greek sources was in fact dealing with the hard evidence available at the time. Subsequently, with the discovery of the Aramaic texts at Qumran, Casey and others are in a much better position to focus on contemporary Aramaic sources, rather than dictionaries compiled from much later sources such as the Talmud, Targums, and Syriac."
Do you disagree with any of this?:
"The Possible Aramaic Gospel" by Edgar J. Goodspeed in _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ (July 1942), 315-340, a paragraph on 339
https://vdocuments.mx/the-possible-aramaic-gospel.html
http://www.jstor.org/stable/543054
For my own part, I long ago did what seemed to me full justice to the very just claims of the Aramaic gospel theory. I quite agree that there was an Aramaic gospel, and that it was the earliest of gospels. But it was an oral, not a written gospel, and that is what Papias was trying to convey in his somewhat baffling remarks on the subject, preserved in Eusebius, _Church History_ iii. 39.15. This is why Paul and Luke, Clement and Polycarp, quote from it with such words as "_Remember_ the words of the Lord Jesus." It was a memorized gospel, handed down in that characteristic Jewish fashion, by word of mouth, like the Mishnah. Of course, such an impractical method did not long satisfy the Greek church, which had to have written gospels.
_Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1959), 166pp., on 137-138
https://archive.org/details/matthewapostleev0000good
Matthew doubtless took down many of Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic; though, in the strongly anti-literary atmosphere that prevailed among the Jews at that time, that he circulated them as an Aramaic book is hardly probable. We know of no other book composed in Aramaic!
====================================================
"One doesn’t give a loaded gun to a child"
Are you aware of any mistakes in the Peshitta?
[Paul Younan]”point me to a mistake in the Aramaic Peshitta which arose from a grammatical error while translating from the Greek. In your model, there should be plenty that exist. ….point me to one error in the Peshitta which can only be explained by the Aramaic translator making a grammatical mistake that could have only happened if he had a Greek original in front of him.”
====================================================
"Is this passage in Isaiah among the textual variants attested in cave 4?"
Nothing about cave 4 for DSS Isaiah 29:13 is mentioned in my DSS copy.
DSS Isaiah 29:13
_The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ (1999), 649pp., on 313
https://archive.org/stream/B-001-001-932/B-001-001-932_djvu.txt
And the Lord said,
Inasmuch as this people draw near to honor me with their mouth
and with their lips,
but have removed their hearts far from me,
and _fear of me_^526 has been _like a human commandment_^527 that has been taught them;
526: 1QIsa^a. _their fear of me_ MT.
527: 1QIsa^a. _a human commandment_ MT.
"look at the grammar of the sentence.... Pay attention to the syntax. Parse the sentence. What is the subject? what is the verb? What is modifying what?
If you look at the pair of sentences, 'the wolf ate the child' and 'the eating child petted the dog,' you can find a lot of verbal similarities (‘dog is similar to ‘wolf’; ‘eating’ is similar to ‘ate’; both sentences talk about a ‘child’, but they are two totally different sentences....
One can’t do textual criticism by looking at translations. It could be a crappy translation. It could be capturing an Hebraism that is usually smoothed out in other translations and seems odd to people unfamiliar with Hebrew. Or it could reflect a corrupted text that can’t be translated because it just doesn’t make any sense"
_The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ (1999), 649pp., on 269-270
https://archive.org/stream/B-001-001-932/B-001-001-932_djvu.txt
Because Isaiah is a lengthy book virtually preserved in its entirety in 1QIsa^a, and since there are so many Isaiah scrolls, for the translation of this book and accompanying variants a somewhat different approach has been taken here than with other books in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The translation that follows is consistently from 1QIsa^a, with the readings from the other scrolls shown in the footnotes. Some of the insignificant variants (usually involving spelling) are not noted. Moreover, in this translation the Septuagint is sometimes, but not always, collated for variant readings. The main reason for this is that Isaiah is mainly poetry,^c and the Septuagint contains a rather free Greek translation of the unvocalized Hebrew poetry; it is thus often difficult to tell exactly which Hebrew form is being translated. However, most of the more significant Septuagint variants are recorded.
c: However, text was subsequently written down in prose format in the scrolls as well as in the Hebrew text used by the Septuagint translator(s).
====================================================
“The last two lines are completely different.
‘Isaiah 29:13 (JPS Tanakh 1917) . . .
But have removed their heart far from Me,
And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;’
vs
‘LXX Isaiah 29:13 Oxford NETS . . .
while their heart is far from me,
and in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts and teachings.'”
“But have removed their heart far from Me” is similar to
“while their heart is far from me.”
“And their fear of Me” is similar to
“and… they worship me.”
“A commandment of men learned by rote” is similar to
“teaching human precepts and teachings.”
“Swete does not lack it:
‘*μάτην* δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας.’
It seems Google translate led you astray on that”
Indeed.
3155. matén
https://biblehub.com/greek/3155.htm
matén: in vain, to no purpose
Original Word: μάτην
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: matén
Phonetic Spelling: (mat’-ane)
Definition: in vain, to no purpose
Usage: in vain, in an unreal way, to no purpose.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 3155 mátēn (an adverb) – properly, “aimlessly”; pointless, without ground or any real purpose (fruitfulness). See 3152 (mataios).
“we have the Dead Sea Scrolls now, and those show the MT (including of this passage) was pretty well preserved”
Cave 4 showed there was another textual stream for certain books, whose renditions were captured in the LXX but absent from the Masoretic.
“why does Young’s suggest to you the MT is corrupted?”
It seems to me a word(s) is missing where the dash is. This doesn’t read well: “their fear of Me is —
A precept of men is taught!”
Isaiah 29:13 (Young’s Literal)
https://biblehub.com/ylt/isaiah/29.htm
And the Lord saith:
Because drawn near hath this people, with its mouth,
And with its lips they have honoured Me,
And its heart it hath put far off from Me,
And their fear of Me is —
A precept of men is taught!
================================================
Which Matthew quotes of Isaiah do you think came from the LXX?
_Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1959), 166pp., on viii-ix
https://archive.org/details/matthewapostleev0000good
Summary of the section “Isaiah in Matthew”:
Isaiah 7.14 = Matthew 1.23
Isaiah 40.3 = Matthew 3.3
Isaiah 9.1+ = Matthew 4.15-16
Isaiah 53.4 = Matthew 8.17
Isaiah 61.1 = Matthew 11.5
Isaiah 14.13-15 = Matthew 11.23
Isaiah 42.1-4; see also Isaiah 41.8-9 = Matthew 12.18-21
Isaiah 6.9-10 = Matthew 13.14-15
Isaiah 29.13 = Matthew 15.8-9
Isaiah 62.11 = Matthew 21.5
Isaiah 56.7 = Matthew 21.13
Isaiah 5.1+ = Matthew 21.33
Isaiah 19.2 = Matthew 24.7
Isaiah 13.10; compare Isaiah 34.4; = Matthew 24.29
Isaiah 27.13 compare Matthew 24.31– an allusion to Isaiah 27.13
==============================================
Do you agree with this?:
_Edgar Johnson Goodspeed: Articulate Scholar_ (1981), 88pp., on 55
https://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Johnson-Goodspeed-Articulate-Scholar/dp/0891304398/
Black's own study of syntax, grammar, vocabulary, Semitic poetic form in the Gospels and evidence of mistranslation and interpretation in Aramaic, yields only one conclusion which can be regarded as in any degree established: that an Aramaic sayings source or tradition lies behind the synoptic Gospels. Whether that source was written or oral, cannot be determined from the evidence.
==============================================
Do you agree with Goodspeed that "Tobit.... was probably written in Greek"?
_The Story of the Apocrypha_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1939), two paragraphs on 13-14
https://archive.org/details/storyoftheapocry012726mbp/
Of all the Apocrypha the earliest in date is the Book of Tobit, written about 200 B.C. Tobit is the ideal Jew. In times when Greek ideals were coming into fashion, Greeks and Jews too needed to be reminded of the strong features of the Jewish character. Progressive young Jews had to be kept in line, and heathen made to see the values of Judaism, as a way of life.
So early in the second century before Christ some Jew in Egypt wrote the Story of Tobit, to exalt the Jewish ideal in the eyes of Jews and Gentiles alike. For the Jews in Egypt were already at work to win recognition and if possible acceptance of their ideals from the peoples among whom they lived. They were translating their Hebrew scriptures into Greek, to make their religion and their culture known in the stirring Greek world in which they found themselves in Egypt. It is as a part of this missionary movement in Egyptian Judaism, in the days of the first Ptolemies, that Tobit must be understood. It was probably written in Greek, for the movement of which it was a part was putting Hebrew literature into Greek, and would hardly express itself in the language from which Egyptian Judaism was so pointedly turning away.
_The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ (1999), 649pp., a paragraph on 636
https://archive.org/stream/B-001-001-932/B-001-001-932_djvu.txt
Before the discovery of copies of the book of Tobit among the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars debated whether the tale was originally written in Greek or perhaps a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic). As is often the case with new discoveries, the Dead Sea Scrolls answered the original question but raised another. Of the five scrolls uncovered in Cave 4, four are written in Aramaic while one is in Hebrew. The debate has already begun as to which represents the _original_ tongue. Another important discussion concerns the date of the writing. Those experts who argued before the Qumran findings for the first to third centuries CE have now been silenced, because the oldest manuscript-- 4QTobit^d-- dates to 100 BCE (though the tale was probably composed as early at the late third century BCE).
RE: Rev 11: my 2nd witness - DavidFord - 05-31-2023
Do you disagree with any of this Goodspeed?:
_A History of Early Christian Literature_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1942), 324pp., on 162
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3943285&view=1up&seq=180
Much more perplexing is Papias' statement about Matthew:
"So then Matthew composed the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and each one translated them as best he could."^5
The only possible meaning of this is that Matthew the apostle was believed to be the author of the _oral_ gospel.^6
4 Eusebius _Church History_ iii. 39. 15.
5 _Ibid_.
6 Goodspeed, _Introduction to the New Testament_ (Chicago, 1937), pp. 129-32.
On 1-5:
the Jewish world in which they lived was altogether averse to literary composition, being absorbed, in the first half of the first century, in the contemplation of its Hebrew heritage, which it held sacred and almost worshiped.
....
It is improbable that primitive Palestinian Christianity produced any written records of Jesus' life or teaching of even the most meager proportions. But, true to their Jewish habits, they do seem to have produced an oral gospel, comprising an account, in their vernacular Aramaic, of his doings and sayings. It would have been altogether natural for them to do this; the Jews were handing down by a similar oral tradition, but in Hebrew, the sayings of their great rabbis....
....the traditional oral gospel.
But have we any actual mention of such a work-- if anything so nebulous can be called a "work"-- on the part of any early Christian writer? Yes, what Papias (_ca_. A.D. 140) says of Matthew composing the "Sayings" in the Aramaic language, and each one translating them as best he could, sounds like an attempt to describe just such a work. If early Christians learned it by heart, in Aramaic, and then carried the Christian message into the Greek world, they would naturally have to translate this oral gospel into Greek for the use of their converts, each one doing it as well as he could.
....the primitive Christians had no thought at all of creating a literature. Their whole concern was for the inner life of the spirit, through which they came into communion with God. A full generation was to pass before Christians thought of writing gospels, and then they were to arise in Greek, not Aramaic, and in circles far removed from Jewish Palestine.
....literary phase of Christianity gradually gathered strength, until it became a great tide not only potent in itself but also influencing other literatures not definitely Christian. Its beginnings were in the Greek world, and for a century Greek was its sole vehicle; then it spread to Latin and Syriac and, in the third century, to Coptic, though at first Syriac and Coptic attempted no more than translations of works originally written in Greek.
////////////////////////////
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-apocrypha-and-pseudepigrapha
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were a number of manuscripts of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, including ten manuscripts of the Book of Enoch in the original Aramaic (until then copies were extant only in an Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation of a Semitic original), which were vital to answering many questions about its origins. Dating of the manuscripts by their script shows that certain parts of Enoch are at least as old as the third century BCE.
_The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Texts Concerned With Religious Law, Exegetical Texts and Parabiblical Texts_
https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Reader-Parabiblical/dp/9004264612/
_The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Volume 2: Calendrical Texts and Sapiential Texts, Poetic and Liturgical Texts, Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts_, 2nd edition
https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Reader-Unclassified/dp/9004264620/
_The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English_, 7th edition (2011), by Geza Vermes
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-English/dp/0141197315/
_A Handbook of the Aramaic Scrolls from the Qumran Caves: Manuscripts, Language, and Scribal Practices_
free PDF available from
https://brill.com/display/title/57106?language=en
hardcopy
https://www.amazon.com/dp/9004513787/
This book provides the first comprehensive treatment of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls from the caves of Qumran. These nearly one hundred scrolls open a window onto a vibrant period of Jewish history for which we previously had few historical sources.
////////////////////////////
_A History of Early Christian Literature_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1942), 324pp., on 1-5
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008517875&view=1up&seq=9&q1=aramaic
Christianity began as a spiritual movement. Its founder wrote nothing. He sought to change men's hearts. He struck at the sources of attitude and action. His early followers continued this course. They were further committed to it by their expectation of his early return in messianic triumph to judge the world. They had no thought of producing a literature; indeed, the Jewish world in which they lived was altogether averse to literary composition, being absorbed, in the first half of the first century, in the contemplation of its Hebrew heritage, which it held sacred and almost worshiped.
Palestinian aversion to original written composition in Hebrew in the first half of the first century is glaringly revealed by two facts. First, the Jews were making a Hebrew commentary on the Jewish Law, but they would not permit this to be written; to write it would seem to put it on a level with That Which Was Written the Scripture itself. So it was memorized and recited. It is repeatedly referred to in the Sermon on the Mount, where this interpretation of the Law is contrasted with Jesus' teaching. More than a century was to elapse before this Mishnah, as it was called, was committed to writing.
And, second, the Jews in that half-century were engaged in translating their sacred scriptures from Hebrew into Aramaic, the vernacular language which everybody used and understood. But this, too, must not be written down; it must be committed to memory, and when about A.D. 50 Gamaliel I came across a written copy of the Aramaic translation of Job, he promptly destroyed it, for to write down such versions seemed to put them on a level with that which was written the Hebrew scripture itself. And, here again, it was years before these translations-- the Targum-- were committed to writing.
Everything, in short, was at first unfavorable to the production of a Christian literature: the Jewish environment of the first believers and the basic attitudes of the Christians themselves-- their emphasis upon the inner life, the spirit, not the letter; and their messianic expectation.
It is improbable that primitive Palestinian Christianity produced any written records of Jesus' life or teaching of even the most meager proportions. But, true to their Jewish habits, they do seem to have produced an oral gospel, comprising an account, in their vernacular Aramaic, of his doings and sayings. It would have been altogether natural for them to do this; the Jews were handing down by a similar oral tradition, but in Hebrew, the sayings of their great rabbis, and these now form part of the Mishnah-- the _Pirke Aboth_, or "Chapters of the Fathers." The evangelists often speak of Jesus as a rabbi, and it would be natural to preserve the memory of his life and teaching in this way.
Such an oral gospel was evidently known to Paul, who quotes it as something handed down to him, or, as we say, tradition (I Cor. 11:23; 15:3). Luke uses it once at least in the Acts: "Remembering the words of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 20:35). His contemporary, Clement of Rome, in his _Letter to the Corinthians_, seems clearly to be quoting it: "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus" (13:1; 46:7). Polycarp of Smyrna, twenty years later, in his _Letter to the Philippians_, quotes Jesus with the words, "Remembering what the Lord said" (2:3). Not only does the manner of quotation in all these instances suggest memorized material but the items quoted cannot be found in these forms in any written gospel. It is reasonable to suppose that they were derived from the traditional oral gospel.
But have we any actual mention of such a work-- if anything so nebulous can be called a "work"-- on the part of any early Christian writer? Yes, what Papias (_ca_. A.D. 140) says of Matthew composing the "Sayings" in the Aramaic language, and each one translating them as best he could, sounds like an attempt to describe just such a work. If early Christians learned it by heart, in Aramaic, and then carried the Christian message into the Greek world, they would naturally have to translate this oral gospel into Greek for the use of their converts, each one doing it as well as he could. This process of oral transmission is probably referred to in Luke's opening sentence, "Just as the original eye-witnesses who became teachers of the message have handed it down to us" (1:2).
While this elusive primitive gospel must have had a great influence on Christian preaching, and through it indirectly upon the gospels that were later written, we cannot recover it, or even describe it, in any detail. It contained some characteristic pieces of Jesus' teaching, with accounts of the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection experiences. We might expect relics of it to survive in Luke or in Matthew; but, if so, they cannot be identified.
It is true, the written gospels, when they appeared, sprang up under its shadow, and not so much to reproduce it as to supplement it. The earliest written gospels seem to have assumed its existence. And from the point of view of the story of Christian literature, this lost oral gospel is chiefly significant as conclusive evidence that the primitive Christians had no thought at all of creating a literature. Their whole concern was for the inner life of the spirit, through which they came into communion with God. A full generation was to pass before Christians thought of writing gospels, and then they were to arise in Greek, not Aramaic, and in circles far removed from Jewish Palestine.
With the letters of Paul and the earliest gospels a new and extraordinary force began to find written expression-- a force destined powerfully to affect the spiritual life of mankind. From small and obscure beginnings-- mere personal letters long left unpublished-- this literary phase of Christianity gradually gathered strength, until it became a great tide not only potent in itself but also influencing other literatures not definitely Christian. Its beginnings were in the Greek world, and for a century Greek was its sole vehicle; then it spread to Latin and Syriac and, in the third century, to Coptic, though at first Syriac and Coptic attempted no more than translations of works originally written in Greek. It was in Greek and then in Latin that it was at first creative.