03-25-2014, 03:12 AM
Quote:I'll give you one instance where a single word is 'missing' from the verse of: Philippians 1:7 in the Peshitta. Toward the end of the verse the Greek text has a separate word specifically saying 'ALL' , but the Peshitta does not; the peshitta, as follows, says
Murdock: For thus it is right for me to think of you all, because ye are permanently in my heart, and because, both in my bonds and in the vindication of the truth of the gospel, ye are my associates in grace.
Etheridge: For so it is right for me to think concerning you all, because you are laid up in my heart; and in my bonds, and in the defence of the truth of the gospel, you are partakers with me in grace.
And an examination of the Aramaic text shows this to be the case, the word 'all' is missing. If the one who translated from the Peshitta (as Aramaic Primacists assert) into Greek was drunk at the time, this would be possible, but otherwise there is absolutely no reason in the normal course of translation to add the word 'all' to the Greek text just because one feels like it or wants to emphasize something. The Peshitta does not indicate the meaning 'all' anywhere in its verse.
The reason i use this one example, is because the Peshitta is riddled with examples where words are either missing or were added when compared to the Greek text. And the multiplicity of similar examples qualify to me as mistranslation.
Is that the best example you have? Try another one, as this one is not at all able to prove your argument.
What makes you certain that the Greek scribe didn't add the 2nd "all" as he was translating the Aramaic text?
The Aramaic text doesn't even need the 2nd "all" as it would be redundant in the sentence, since the 1st part of the sentence is addressing them "all", and says so. The "you" at the end, is clearly tied to the "you all" at the start of the verse...and there is not a bit of confusion in the Aramaic text.
Often you will find in a translation, more words to help make the sense (helper words) The KJV for instance has many of these in italics in the original printings...in this case the Greek scribe may have thought it proper to add the 2nd "all" as a helper word just to make certain that both instances were shown to be speaking of the same group...and of course they are, as can be clearly seen in the Aramaic text, as well as the Greek...with or without the 2nd helper word "all". If they used italics back then to indicate when a helper word was used and that the word was not in the source text...we would see a bunch in the Greek text, I'm sure, since it is inevitable when translating from one language to another.
It's a literary redundancy in this case, and not needed at "all". I say that the Aramaic text has the original form of the text, and nothing is missing in it at "all".
Do you have a more convincing example of a supposed "mistranslation" in the Aramaic Text, I can look at?
And I was good enough to share a bit about myself, are you good enough to do so as well? You are my Brother, right? I'd like to know a bit about my Brother, if you are. Why hide your identity like this?
-Chuck
.
.