1Corinthians 8:11 Brother/One

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhay,

In the Greek of 1Corinthians 8:11, we read an interesting variant: <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.

For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the one for whose sake Christ died.

How did this variant come about, especially considering the Greek for "Brother" and "One" look nothing alike?

Well, here comes Aramaic to the rescue. The Peshitta text reads:

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ny0 wh[/font] (lit., "He who", idiom. "The One")

The translator of the Critical Text got this one right, but the translator of the Byzantine text mistakenly read:

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0x0 wh[/font] (lit., "The Brother")

In written Estrangelo, the letters Yudh-Nun (or, Nun-Yudh) when written together look very much like a Kheth (and this actually accounts for many scribal errors)

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]ny[/font] (Yudh-Nun together)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]yn[/font] (Nun-Yudh together)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]x[/font] (Kheth)

As you can see even with this computer-generated clean font, it's hard to tell sometimes between these letters. In written form, the likelihood of error increases as the writers hand may overcompensate the height of the initial Yudh, overly shrink the subsequent Nun, or even ink/smudge marks could contribute.

[ograabe]

January 28, 2008

Dear Paul.

Does this translation error mean than the Peshitta must have been written in Estrangela characters in the First Century, which is when the Greek Christians would surely have made the first translations into Greek?

Could this translation error have occurred if the Peshitta had been written using Ashuri Hebrew characters?

Thanks....

Otto

[Paul Younan]

Hi Akhi Otto,

Yes, in the 1st-century script they would have looked very similar as well. They Yodh and Nun together (or vice-versa) could have easily been mistaken for a Kheth. Wish I had that font locally so I could demonstrate.....I'll try to find it.

[Paul Younan]

Akhay, here's how the words would have looked using the script found in the Pesher Habakkuk style:



The Habakkuk Scroll found in the Dead Sea caves has been dated paleographically to 30-1 BC. This has been confirmed by radiocarbon tests dating it at 120-5 BC.

What do you think Akhi Otto, do we have a winner here ? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

[gbausc]

Shlama Akhay,

I have recently put that example in my translation in Dead Sea Scroll script, which looks very much like the Pesher-Habakkuk script.
I will have to get that one. It will make for very impressive examples of Peshitta primacy. I used the DSS script to illustrate over 100
such examples in the NT.
It would be great if we could use these fonts here on the web site.
Thank you Paul, for that example.

Burkta b'Maran,

Dave

[ograabe]

January 28, 2008

Thanks Paul and Dave,

Yes, this is a winner.

This font information is very interesting and enlightening. It is very helpful to me to understand better about the original font of the Peshitta.

I have one related question.

Surely, Torah was always in Ashuri. Also, I thought that the Dead Sea Scrolls have Aramaic text using the Ashuri font.

When did the Jews stop using Ashuri characters for their writings?

Sincerely,

Otto

[Paul Younan]

Surely, Torah was always in Ashuri.

Actually, the "Ashuri" ("Assyrian") script wasn't used originally. It was the Paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician script that the OT was originally penned in. The Samaritans to this day use this old "Hebrew" script:



Originally, Aramaic was written like this (before Estrangelo):



It's basically the same script as the old Hebrew/Samaritan above.

After the captivities, when they returned to the Holy Land, they began to use the Assyrian ("Ashuri") script:



But this clean-looking font is a really modern version of Ashuri, the old Ashuri used at the time of the DSS and Meshikha looked like the above example I gave from the Habbakuk scroll.

Also, I thought that the Dead Sea Scrolls have Aramaic text using the Ashuri font.

True, but that Ashuri looked more like the previous post. It has evolved over time to a cleaner look and standard (As all scripts have evolved).

When did the Jews stop using Ashuri characters for their writings?

They do to this day, they began using it after the captivity. But the OT wasn't originally penned in Ashuri, nor was the NT originally penned in Estrangelo.

The OT was penned in the old Hebrew/Samaritan/Phoenician/Aramaic script. Today, the OT is printed in the Ashuri script.

The NT was originally penned in the Ashuri/Assyrian script. Today, the NT is printed in the Estrangelo script. Sometimes in Swadaya (modern CoE script) or Serto (modern Jacobite script), with vowel markings.

Hope that made sense. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

PS - in a nutshell, nothing but the Samaritan Pentateuch has remained in its original script. But they're all the same 22-letter alphabet, so just writing styles changed.

[ograabe]

January 29, 2008'

Wow!

This is really enlightening and interesting. Thanks...

Sincerely,

Otto

[abudar2000]

shlom lokh akh Paul,

Wasn't Estrangelo writing found as early as the 2nd Centrury BC in Israel? Given the fact that Estrangelo evolved from Ashuri Tav, isn't it probable that it would have been commonly available. Also I believe that in the Chronicle of Edessa the King sent Jesus a letter written in the Estrangelo script.

wtawdi lokh!

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun

[Paul Younan]

shlom lokh akh Paul,

Wasn't Estrangelo writing found as early as the 2nd Centrury BC in Israel? Given the fact that Estrangelo evolved from Ashuri Tav, isn't it probable that it would have been commonly available. Also I believe that in the Chronicle of Edessa the King sent Jesus a letter written in the Estrangelo script.

wtawdi lokh!

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun

Hi Akh Abudar,

Either way, in both scripts the words look very similiar! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->