Posts: 546
Threads: 39
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
judge Wrote:Thirdwoe Wrote:...
...So, what this could mean is that there is either another older Hebrew text than the Masoretic that the Peshitta is quoting from, or it quotes from the Peshitta Old Testament in it's citations and the Peshitta Old Testament does not agree with the present Hebrew Masoretic text in those places, or, which does not seem likely, is using the Septuagint translation, but maybe it is just that the Septuagint we have today agrees more with the Aramaic or Hebrew text, that the Peshitta New Testament utilizes in it's Old Testament citations...
...
I have not done an exhaustive check, but IIUC the peshitta NT is pretty close to the GNT in its quotations and that these are not the same as the peshitta OT (although in some places they may be.
I know that at least in some instances the POT agrees (or is closer to) with the massoretic against the LXX! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> IIRC one can see this by comparing the date for noahs flood in all three texts (but dont quote me on this I am going from memory)
The origin of the POT is quite obscure and is not directly related to the PNT.
I tend to agree with the proposal put forward by Paul in the past, that the NT authors may have been familiar with Aramaic targums that we no longer have. Galilean ones at times.
As it seems Aramaic was the dominant language the scriptures were probably commonly known by the targums.
What we do know is that despite any textual tradition there was a text that varied form the massoretic text (albeit slightly) around at the the time of Christ.
I think, but am not sure, that the DSS show more than one variation in Hebrew at that time too.
Shlama Akhi:
Your response is most comprehensive. I did not mention that Yeshua and the Jewish inhabitants of HaGalil may have read, or "listened to" the Aramaic Targums available to them since there is no mention of them whatsoever in the New Testament. The thought did cross my mind. The use of Targums in Aramaic would explain the presence of variations between the Massoretic text and "some of the quotes" in the New Testament.
Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Posts: 546
Threads: 39
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
Shlama All:
There are slight textual differences between The great Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran vis-a-vis the Massoretic text of Isaiah. Nevertheless, the Great Isaiah Scroll is a great testimony to the cohesiveness of the book of Isaiah. It is an imperfect scribal copy with variations of the text. If it was used in the synagogue it would have been buried in a geniza at the end of its usefulness but since it was among the scrolls at Qumran it may have been slightly paraphrased, and this may account for the differences when compared with the Massoretic text. Moreover, when it comes to the problem of "virgin" or "young woman", both the Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea and the Massoretic text use "alma", and "alma" means "virgin" in the context in which it is used. (Isaiah 7:14, Genesis 24:16, 43) Compare the use of "betulah" along with the qualifier, "v'ish lo yada" and "alma" without a qualifier. They are "equivalent". As for Amos 5:26-27, where the Massoretic text reads "Sukkot" and "Kiun" vis-a-vis Acts 7:42-43, where the Aramaic Peshitta reads "Malkum" and "Raphan" respectively, it is not uncommon that the same false deity can have more than one name. This in and of itself, is not proof that the Peshitta New Testament followed the Greek New Testament. The Peshitta New testament uses Greek names such as Petros, so why is it a stretch to see false deities with two names. There is no convincing proof that at the time of Yeshua the Alexandrian library had any translation other than that of the Torah.
I strongly believe that the scribal tradition which produced the entire T"NK in Hebrew prevented the redaction of the text. Letters were counted. Marginal notes were added. Nothing was purposefully added or removed from the text. Such was the level of holiness of the Scriptures. This same scribal tradition was passed on to the primitive Church of the East. The more the western church distanced itself from eastern christians, the further they distanced themselves from Jewish scribal traditions. Pericope Adulterae does not accurately reflect Jewish law at the time of Yeshua as does the rest of the Gospel narrative of John. It appears to be contrived. It doesn't appear in the fifth century codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. As screwed up as this Codex is it has eliminated Pericope Adulterae as if it never existed. I'll go with the Massoretic text of the Jewish Bible and the Aramaic Peshitta without reservation.
Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
...
Brother Stephen,
Will you do something brave and scary?
Go to the Peshitta New Testament and find all the clear quotations from the Old Testament books, then check the readings that you find there to what you find in the Masoretic Hebrew text of today.
Then go to the Peshitta Old Testament and do the same to see if the quotations line up with each other better or worse...
Then, if you are really super brave....
Do the same thing again, but this time, use the Septuagint text rather than the Masoretic text or the Peshitta Old Testament text and see what you find.
But after all this if you still don't trust the Septuagint readings more than the Masoretic text or the Peshitta Old Testament Text, then go to the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Aramaic Targums to see which text has the most consistent quotation accuracy...
And if you still, tenaciously cling to the idea that the Masoretic is the most pure of the others in all these quotation places, then replace the New Testament quotations you find in the Peshitta New Testament with what you find in the Hebrew Masoretic text of today and see what the Original Aramaic New Testament should really read like....
Or if this seems like far too much labor if not so scary.... then simply go to this website below, where a brave soul has done most of this work already.....
Just look to your left on the page - CONTENTS
What needs to be checked still is the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic Targums in these quotation places that is listed there at the website, since it only deals with the Hebrew Masoretic, the Greek Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls text quotations....
So, If you are brave, enter the scray place --> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm">http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pine ... pindex.htm</a><!-- m -->
<!-- s  hocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt=" hocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- s hocked: -->
...
Posts: 483
Threads: 118
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
Stephen Silver Wrote:Shlama All:
There are slight textual differences between The great Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran vis-a-vis the Massoretic text of Isaiah. Nevertheless, the Great Isaiah Scroll is a great testimony to the cohesiveness of the book of Isaiah. It is an imperfect scribal copy with variations of the text. If it was used in the synagogue it would have been buried in a geniza at the end of its usefulness but since it was among the scrolls at Qumran it may have been slightly paraphrased, and this may account for the differences when compared with the Massoretic text.
To me, this sounds like a reasonable explanation. I don't know that we can be certain it is correct, but it makes sense.
Stephen Silver Wrote:(snip) As for Amos 5:26-27, where the Massoretic text reads "Sukkot" and "Kiun" vis-a-vis Acts 7:42-43, where the Aramaic Peshitta reads "Malkum" and "Raphan" respectively, it is not uncommon that the same false deity can have more than one name. This in and of itself, is not proof that the Peshitta New Testament followed the Greek New Testament.
Agreed but it may be evidence that the NT authors were not familiar with the massoretic text, or at least were more famiar with another tradition or targums.
(snip)
Stephen Silver Wrote:I strongly believe that the scribal tradition which produced the entire T"NK in Hebrew prevented the redaction of the text. Letters were counted. Marginal notes were added. Nothing was purposefully added or removed from the text. Such was the level of holiness of the Scriptures.
This is all possibly true, but we are still left with the fact that all (or most) of the NT authors don't quote the massoretic text. So the massoretic text may have existed, but it doesn't seem to have been popular.
The peshitta NT quotes seem to tell us that a version existed, that was popular, that was closer to the LXX(s) we have today.
It is hard to be certain about how this came about. Maybe the LXX was edited to resemble the GNT which was translated from the Peshitta NT. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> There are many possibilties.
Stephen Silver Wrote:I'll go with the Massoretic text of the Jewish Bible and the Aramaic Peshitta without reservation.
Except in Acts 7:14 maybe (or the many other instances where they disagree). Where you have to choose between them.
It may be that the massoretic text has been preserved and that the peshitta NT authors did not care too much whether they got it word for word (Mattis use of it is suprising enough, quite apart from the fact he doesn't quote it the way we would in the 21st century <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ). If this is the case it may be that the church changed the LXX to agree with the GNT.
Acts 7:14 is problematic for this idea though as the DSS version, in Hebrew, reads 75 souls.
Maybe the massoretic text was perfectly preserved, and at the same time other imperfect versions were around and that the DSS (as you suggest) was one of these versions.
The NT authors it seems were happy enough to use these versions, even though they were imperfect.
Which of course, if it is true, makes me wonder why we in the 21st century should, at times, be so rigid. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
All the best Stephen.
Posts: 546
Threads: 39
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:This is all possibly true, but we are still left with the fact that all (or most) of the NT authors don't quote the massoretic text. So the massoretic text may have existed, but it doesn't seem to have been popular.
The peshitta NT quotes seem to tell us that a version existed, that was popular, that was closer to the LXX(s) we have today.
It is hard to be certain about how this came about. Maybe the LXX was edited to resemble the GNT which was translated from the Peshitta NT. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> There are many possibilties.
Shlama:
I have compared some of the quotes in the Peshitta New Testament and they are almost verbatim with the Ambrosiano Codex. I'm not sure just when the Peshitta A"NK was first translated from the Hebrew T"NK. It makes sense to me that the Peshitta New Testament quoted from an Aramaic "translation" of the Hebrew T"NK. After all, the Aramaic Targums were pre-Christian, but they are somewhat paraphrased. The Ambrosiano Peshitta A"NK is more literally translated from the Hebrew T"NK, in my opinion. Once again it makes sense to me that it was necessary to have an accurate literal translation into Aramaic of the Jewish Bible, some time after Ezra the Scribe. The Ambrosiano Codex is quite useful when it is used in conjunction with the Peshitta New Testament.
Having said this, I just don't see how the Greek LXX and the Greek New Testament can be relied upon for accuracy, since the Greek Old Testament is somewhat paraphrased and the Greek New Testament, with all of its manuscript variances is a translation of the Peshitta New Testament, again in my opinion.
When it comes to the Hebrew T"NK, it's the best we have as representative of the best Jewish scribal tradition. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a testimony of the ancientness of the Jewish Bible but they are not part of the Jewish Scribal tradition that we now understand as Massoretic.
Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
...
Brother Stephen,
Could you be kind enough to make a translation of The Ambrosiano Codex into English? I would love to read and study it.... <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
Also, I am trying to find an online complete Aramaic Old Testament in English that is other than the Lamsa version...is there one out there in cyberspace that you may know of?
I am wondering as well what the English translation is in the Trilinear Tragums that appear to the right on this website?
...
Posts: 546
Threads: 39
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
Thirdwoe Wrote:...
Brother Stephen,
Could you be kind enough to make a translation of The Ambrosiano Codex into English? I would love to read and study it.... <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
Also, I am trying to find an online complete Aramaic Old Testament in English that is other than the Lamsa version...is there one out there in cyberspace that you may know of?
I am wondering as well what the English translation is in the Trilinear Tragums that appear to the right on this website?
...
Shlama Akhi:
Akhi Yaaqub Younan-Levine has begun translating the Peshitta A"NK. You might want to keep abreast of his work as it unfolds.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://pshitta.org/english/">http://pshitta.org/english/</a><!-- m -->
Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
...
Yes, I have that site set as a study source.
Is this The Ambrosiano Codex being translated or some other as the base sourse text?
Also, what is the English translation used for the Trilinear Targums that is here on Peshitta.org...to the left there?
...
Posts: 546
Threads: 39
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
Thirdwoe Wrote:...
Yes, I have that site set as a study source.
Is this The Ambrosiano Codex being translated or some other as the base sourse text?
Also, what is the English translation used for the Trilinear Targums that is here on Peshitta.org...to the left there?
...
Shlama:
This is where you can find the Ambrosiano Codex. (When asked for username/password use any/any)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/7a1">http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2 ... bleMSS/7a1</a><!-- m -->
Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
...
Stephen,
Do you know which English translation is used for the Trilinear Targums that is here on Peshitta.org..???
...
Posts: 546
Threads: 39
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
Thirdwoe Wrote:...
Stephen,
Do you know which English translation is used for the Trilinear Targums that is here on Peshitta.org..???
...
Shlama:
No I don't. Perhaps someone else can help you.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
0
Paul Younan Wrote:More likely than not, each Aramaic book was translated once into Greek - possibly by an immediate disciple of that author, or perhaps someone who was bilingual at that congregation a little later on for the benefit of those people who didn't understand Aramaic.
After that initial translation, different manuscript lineages (like Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, etc.) developed over time. So a mistake in that very first translation perpetuated itself throughout the rest of the branches of the tree. That's where "Mistranslations" come in.
And the scribes responsible for the later manuscripts and Greek textual traditions introduced some of their own mistakes, not based on the Aramaic, but rather on a misunderstanding of the Greek text they were copying, or revising, or adding to, or subtracting from. That's where "Variances" come in.
In certain cases where Polysemy exists, it can be argued that the authors of those manuscripts attempted to correct what they considered to be an erroneous Greek reading by referring back to the original Aramaic. So they chose an alternate meaning to that word in Aramaic. That's where, of course, "Polysemy" comes in.
It's quite a mess in certain cases.
This is a rather complicated topic, and it requires careful thought. For your benefit I would suggest that you consider the sum of the parts when reaching a conclusion, rather than isolating one type.
Also didn't the Romans at one point (try to) destroy everything not written in Greek? I believe Flavius Josephus talks about this, in fact if I recall correctly Josephus had to learn Greek and translate all his documents into Greek so they wouldn't be destroyed. Obviously this would suggest that Greek translations would need to be created from the Aramaic for reasons other than just sharing the Gospel with Greek speaking people.
Kria, how would you possibly explain Paul writing most of the New Testament poetically in Aramaic? If you didn't already know, it is impossible to translate something into another language and still make it rhyme; the modern translations of Beowulf is proof enough of that.
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
0
I am really fascinated with "Aramaic Primacy" issue and I have read a work proving that too. But there is one thing I can't understand.
For example in case of "Camel/Rope through eye of needle" and "Hardly would anyone die for good/evil..."(In Romans)
The idea is, there was no such thing as a gate in Jerusalem. So, generally translator follows the easier variant and tries to avoid complications or stupidities. Same with "good/evil" - it's logical to assume not to put both positive words there. Either translators were morons(all of them), or something is fishy about it.
The change from "Apart from God" to "by God's grace" in Hebrews 2:9 occurred in the Greek variant and scribes followed 'easier reading rule' - and put dogmatically much easier and peaceful "by God's grace".
But, in overall, most of the arguments Aramaic Primacists use, is that translators were idiots, and they missed the obvious and logical translations of the words - and this isn't satisfactory.
Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
2
Otherguylb Wrote:But, in overall, most of the arguments Aramaic Primacists use, is that translators were idiots, and they missed the obvious and logical translations of the words - and this isn't satisfactory.
Isn't that simplifying it a bit, though? Some of the examples you give, like Camel vs. Rope, or even the recently discussed Leper vs. Potter, work either way and aren't really a sign of the translators' stupidity. The translators were obviously smart enough to be bilingual, so our arguments really aren't meant to diminish their intelligence. But all translators make mistakes, no one is perfect. And pre-vowel point Semitic languages, with consonants only, were far from perfect. Translators of these languages were in the unenviable position of being mistake-prone. Lots of mistakes are present in the Septuagint, and those translators certainly weren't dumb. Aramaic Primacists look for these tell-tale mistakes and point to an Aramaic solution.
Bi-lingual people are very rarely equally proficient in both languages. They are typically stronger in the one they first heard, or use more frequently.
Personally, I think the best examples are where multiple translators interpret an Aramaic word with a A/B meaning differently. Therefore some manuscripts have the A meaning, and others the B. Both translators were intelligent, one just made a mistake. Perhaps the one with the correct meaning was the result of a revision, when someone noticed the error.
Honestly, before you were forced to think about it, did you ever question the Camel going through a needle reading? Probably not, and that's certainly not an indication of your level of intelligence. It worked. Still conveys the same overall imagery/meaning. Might as well be an elephant going through a needle.
Aramaic just makes things a bit clearer.
+Shamasha
P.S. - I must admit, the one in Romans (good/evil) makes me wonder about the intelligence of that translator. A little proofreading, please?
Posts: 14
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
This is my first post in this forum. I don't have the facts to verify which scripts were written first so i have no idea, but i do have an opinion.
Firstly, other than some ambiguous complex speculated fact of history that is little known, common sense would suggest that those areas Paul wrote to, while being Roman colonies, were not so long before, full blown Greek culture, so the Greek language would have still been in full use. Therefore, Paul being sent as an Apostle to the Gentiles and having Greek audiences to his letters, would satisfy me that they would naturally have been written in Greek, simple! My Greek friend well versed in his own history said the Ephesians and Colossians and Thessalonians etc definitely were speaking the Greek language at that time, and thus it is "impossible" that Paul wrote to them in Aramaic. Theophilus written to by Luke in Acts is a fully Greek origin name. All throughout acts it's theme is about the conversion of the "Gentiles" not the conversion of the Hellenistic Jews, who by the way also spoke Greek!
Secondly, the Hebrew and Greek language are the only two languages which have ever had their lettering represented by numbers in the history of the world, and no other language since then, therefore, God was confirming for us that the Hebrew people were representative of the first covenant, and the Greeks and its language were representative of the second covenant so to speak, which is also evidenced by the fact that i have in my possession the perfect Greek text as established by bible numerics (Dr Palin: yes it is available for download in PDF at unleavenedbreadministries) which was able to prove which verses or words were added and which verses or words were deleted; thus God was not only writing His word in lettering, but also in mathematics, which gave us a means to verify and prove not only the perfect text, but also which language they were written in, because the the Aramaic most definitely does not have this feature, and thus, to me, makes it self-evident that it was not "originally" written in Aramaic. This is very much overwhelming evidence to me! The mathematical formulas of seven proven in Dr Palin's text are simply mind boggling and put beyond any doubt about who the "real" Author of the scripture is, because the chances of the mathematical formulas being contrived by man were calculated to be in the odds of trillions to one via "very real" odds calculations.
A team of professional linguists attempted to contrive a single sentence as mathematically complex as just a single verse in the Greek and failed miserably, therefore, that the Greek text has flawless multidimensional complex mathematics woven into its text puts beyond "all" doubt, not only Who wrote it, but also what languages they were originally written in, and the mathematical formula also proves how many books were designated by God to complete the Bible, which shows that the total number of Greek and Hebrew books of the Bible to also be perfect, for if it wasn't, another underlying mathematical formula aligning with the surface formula would not have been possible. So the fact that the Greek texts have the right amount of Epistles and the Aramaic didn't, is again more proof. To my mind there can be no argument that could stand in the face of this.
Also i have read a lot of the AENT, and there are a lot of verses that don't really make sense to me, not because i'm so familiar with the versions translated from Greek and biased, but because the Aramaic renditions sound awkward, and not quite right. Paul had a sense of flow in his original Greek writing that comes through in the English when translated correctly, but from the Aramaic it is sort of awkward and convoluted appears lacking, plus it struggles to make sense in some ways. My point is that there are nearly no verses translated from the Greek that don't make sense, as opposed to what I have seen in the AENT, albeit, i absolutely applaud Paul Younan's dedication, efforts, passion and work achieved and will be buying his fourth edition simply because it is a rare and phenomenal work. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
|
