06-25-2010, 09:48 PM
Thanks for you comments.
I was wondering if an answer would come from archeology or perhaps Samaritan literature. It would be fascinating if we find that symon was also a name back then among the Samaritans and we find that the Peshitta has preserved this while the Greek has not.
Either way it is interesting to me that here in the Peshitta we have two names where the Greek just renders them both the same, as I think upon this the more interesting it becomes to me, if you have both names in Aramaic (without vowel points) and you do not have a shin in your alphabet because your writing in Greek, how would you show the distinction between what remains of the two names?
Does the Greek show any distinction at all between the two names? Because I've never seen the name Seemon in any English translation from Greek.
Also please, let us look at the narrative here, if there is no distinction in the Greek between the two names, and if Luke writes this in Greek, then it is good here that he only mentions the name Peter for the Apostle, to save confusion between Simon the Apostle and Simon the Magician. Though this may be sufficient to keep things clear, we would question whether this is really clear enough for the disciples taste.
What I mean is this, in the narrative between Peter and Simon, the context is clear enough to show who is saying what, however when we see the same thing happening in the Gospels, especially in John, that is, when there are two people with the same name, John will often make the distinction, such as "Judas (not Iscariot) said..." perhaps we may expect to see in the narrative here "and Simon (not the Apostle) said..." or "and Simon (the Magician) said..."
However if this were written in Aramaic, there would simply be no need for any clarifications, as the names are not even made up of the same consonants.
Here again may be another example where the Peshitta preserves more information than does the Greek text.
Also, I have to say though of course I may be way off, it is quite a strong temptation to think that out of reverence to the Apostle Peter, Simon's (and even here though the context is clear enough it is still helpful to add "That is Simon the Magician's ) name to Seymon, that the name associated with the blessed one might not be associated with the cursed one.
But that would be speculating that someone intentionally changed here, which is certainly not fair to do without other evidences and I am not of the nature to accuse without reason, but only I say it because there is a precedent in the Hebrew Tanakh, that one Moses was changed into another name that the Prophet Moses's name may not be confused with a wicked one.I think it was changed to Manases, So I hear, but maybe someone else knows best. Of course the Jews who did the changing and the Aramaic Christians who kept the Peshitta are two different people and there is still no warrant to suppose that because the one did this that the other did it also, I only speculate for the sake of completeness.
I need to say one more thing now, since the Greek has no sheen, and if it was the GNT that was well known and even used among the Arameans before they had their own NT, why did they change Simon into Shim'on? On what basis? and if they found the basis why should they change the name they are so familiar with which is so important, to another name which the people were not used to at all, for example, if you talked about Shimon the Apostle to people in the Western Churches today, most would wonder who you were talking about. It would be confusing.
Why the painstaking attention to detail in the Peshitta? Did they spend the time and research to bring every Semetic name back into the NT since they sighed that it had been lost in the Greek? Was their's a "Sacred Name" Bible with all places and Hebrew names restored? I hardly think this would have been the feeling of the time or the most important task at hand, surely a straight simple translation of the Greek, matching the Greek in all points so as not to cause confusion, keeping familiar names so as not to bewilder people, and especially such important names as Simon etc, as we see that those names and titles which are Greek are quite faithfully reproduced in the Aramaic text.
I realise it is a one sided and there are some flaws in what I am saying, but the general argument is worth considering and discussing. I don't understand why the Peshitta is so flatly ruled out as anything but translation from the Greek.
Any thoughts friends?
I was wondering if an answer would come from archeology or perhaps Samaritan literature. It would be fascinating if we find that symon was also a name back then among the Samaritans and we find that the Peshitta has preserved this while the Greek has not.
Either way it is interesting to me that here in the Peshitta we have two names where the Greek just renders them both the same, as I think upon this the more interesting it becomes to me, if you have both names in Aramaic (without vowel points) and you do not have a shin in your alphabet because your writing in Greek, how would you show the distinction between what remains of the two names?
Does the Greek show any distinction at all between the two names? Because I've never seen the name Seemon in any English translation from Greek.
Also please, let us look at the narrative here, if there is no distinction in the Greek between the two names, and if Luke writes this in Greek, then it is good here that he only mentions the name Peter for the Apostle, to save confusion between Simon the Apostle and Simon the Magician. Though this may be sufficient to keep things clear, we would question whether this is really clear enough for the disciples taste.
What I mean is this, in the narrative between Peter and Simon, the context is clear enough to show who is saying what, however when we see the same thing happening in the Gospels, especially in John, that is, when there are two people with the same name, John will often make the distinction, such as "Judas (not Iscariot) said..." perhaps we may expect to see in the narrative here "and Simon (not the Apostle) said..." or "and Simon (the Magician) said..."
However if this were written in Aramaic, there would simply be no need for any clarifications, as the names are not even made up of the same consonants.
Here again may be another example where the Peshitta preserves more information than does the Greek text.
Also, I have to say though of course I may be way off, it is quite a strong temptation to think that out of reverence to the Apostle Peter, Simon's (and even here though the context is clear enough it is still helpful to add "That is Simon the Magician's ) name to Seymon, that the name associated with the blessed one might not be associated with the cursed one.
But that would be speculating that someone intentionally changed here, which is certainly not fair to do without other evidences and I am not of the nature to accuse without reason, but only I say it because there is a precedent in the Hebrew Tanakh, that one Moses was changed into another name that the Prophet Moses's name may not be confused with a wicked one.I think it was changed to Manases, So I hear, but maybe someone else knows best. Of course the Jews who did the changing and the Aramaic Christians who kept the Peshitta are two different people and there is still no warrant to suppose that because the one did this that the other did it also, I only speculate for the sake of completeness.
I need to say one more thing now, since the Greek has no sheen, and if it was the GNT that was well known and even used among the Arameans before they had their own NT, why did they change Simon into Shim'on? On what basis? and if they found the basis why should they change the name they are so familiar with which is so important, to another name which the people were not used to at all, for example, if you talked about Shimon the Apostle to people in the Western Churches today, most would wonder who you were talking about. It would be confusing.
Why the painstaking attention to detail in the Peshitta? Did they spend the time and research to bring every Semetic name back into the NT since they sighed that it had been lost in the Greek? Was their's a "Sacred Name" Bible with all places and Hebrew names restored? I hardly think this would have been the feeling of the time or the most important task at hand, surely a straight simple translation of the Greek, matching the Greek in all points so as not to cause confusion, keeping familiar names so as not to bewilder people, and especially such important names as Simon etc, as we see that those names and titles which are Greek are quite faithfully reproduced in the Aramaic text.
I realise it is a one sided and there are some flaws in what I am saying, but the general argument is worth considering and discussing. I don't understand why the Peshitta is so flatly ruled out as anything but translation from the Greek.
Any thoughts friends?