Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
(09-02-2015, 07:56 AM)sestir Wrote: Caruso's collation of Mark 1 is a good starting point. Codex Climaci Rescriptus has ܒܐܠܦܐ. The Sinaitic Palimpsest has ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ with a different word-order. A different word-order indicates that something has happened in the text so SyS gives a little bit of support to Peshitta.

On the other hand ܥܡ ܐܓܝܪܐ ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ ܒܬܪܗ ... provides a possibility of omission by homeoteleuton. Do we have a clue to what Diatessaron read?

The Arabic translation of the Diatessaron, given in an English translation I have here shows the reading given in Matthew 4:21, pretty much verbatim. Since the Diatessaron is a Gospel harmony, even if Tatian's Aramaic Mark copy contained "in the boat", he would most likely have just gone with what Matthew has, since it would have the same statement.

It's safe to say that the scribes who produced the CCR could have easily been influenced by the Greek text they were privy to, all things considered regarding it. Also note the use of the word there is as that found in Matthews Gospel, rather than the word used by the editors of the UBS version.

We can't consider the SP to be a true Peshitta manuscript as it isn't a copy of its text, but another sort of production, and obviously influenced by the Greek NT in many places. Perhaps this is where the UBS editors took the word from and placed it into their new text. Not sure.

Is there any other place where the Aramaic word ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ is fond in Mark 1:20, that they could have taken it from and placed it in their version?


Messages In This Thread
RE: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - by Thirdwoe - 09-03-2015, 07:21 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)