03-07-2013, 06:05 AM
Shlama Akhi Chuck
People have actually noticed it (Steve didn't discover this). Ishodad of Merv (one of our bishops in the 11th century) faulted a "lazy copyist" for the error in his commentary.
How it happened (this is purely hypothetical) could have gone something like this:
78 AD: the Edessene copy at the church in Baghdad contained the Nun. And it lacked the gloss.
After 78 AD: someone copied the passage, misread the Nun for a Lamed. Still no gloss.
Even later after 78 AD: someone noticed the strange Lamed, thought it was a quirky way Jews talked in their Hebraic dialect, and added the gloss.
All copies descend from this unfortunate mistake. That's one possible explanation.
Again, I have no idea or way to prove the hypothesis above.
But no one, certainly not me, has ever suggested that Peshitta copies are free from copyist error. We see them a lot less frequently than in the Greek copies, that is certain. Our claim has always been that it has remained unrevised since its reception from the apostles. Copyist errors happen in every case, Hebrew OT, GNT, ANT, etc.
But there's no doubt that the Peshitta copies we have have the least amount of copyist errors, especially within the eastern copies.
The key to this is the root "rab", and it's obviously understood to mean teacher/master. Hence the gloss correctly reflects the right meaning. This is a very insignificant error, all things considered.
This copyist error, if true as Ishodad of Merv asserted, must have occurred very early on, in order to have propagated throughout all the copies (even he noticed it in the 11th century.)
+Shamasha
People have actually noticed it (Steve didn't discover this). Ishodad of Merv (one of our bishops in the 11th century) faulted a "lazy copyist" for the error in his commentary.
How it happened (this is purely hypothetical) could have gone something like this:
78 AD: the Edessene copy at the church in Baghdad contained the Nun. And it lacked the gloss.
After 78 AD: someone copied the passage, misread the Nun for a Lamed. Still no gloss.
Even later after 78 AD: someone noticed the strange Lamed, thought it was a quirky way Jews talked in their Hebraic dialect, and added the gloss.
All copies descend from this unfortunate mistake. That's one possible explanation.
Again, I have no idea or way to prove the hypothesis above.
But no one, certainly not me, has ever suggested that Peshitta copies are free from copyist error. We see them a lot less frequently than in the Greek copies, that is certain. Our claim has always been that it has remained unrevised since its reception from the apostles. Copyist errors happen in every case, Hebrew OT, GNT, ANT, etc.
But there's no doubt that the Peshitta copies we have have the least amount of copyist errors, especially within the eastern copies.
The key to this is the root "rab", and it's obviously understood to mean teacher/master. Hence the gloss correctly reflects the right meaning. This is a very insignificant error, all things considered.
This copyist error, if true as Ishodad of Merv asserted, must have occurred very early on, in order to have propagated throughout all the copies (even he noticed it in the 11th century.)
+Shamasha