Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Were some parts of the Peshitta altered?
#1
K, this can be the thread for discussing *suspected* Peshitta scribal alterations / tampering.

First one is Romans 5:7.

Romans 5:7 (MUR): "for rarely doth one die for the ungodly; though for the good, some one perhaps might venture to die :"

Greek (ASV): For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: for peradventure for the good man some one would even dare to die.


Could the Greek have the original reading?

Can someone please explain to me how Zorba could have screwed this up? ( The Greek having no variant reading "ungodly" casts doubt on this Peshitta reading)
Reply
#2
Hi,

I think this makes way for a very early (1st century) translation of an original which was written using Hebrew Square script to a Greek source. The mistake is ancient and later on, never corrected.
When the Peshitta was penned, at some time it was copied from a hebrew script to a Aramaic-Syrian script, this mistake was not made.

G.D. Bauscher gives a very viable possibility it could have looked like this in the 1st century:
[Image: rom5v7.png]

Another thing I would like to comment on is the phrasing 'altered'. I seriously doubt there is any exegetical discussion or schism in the early church about Romans 5:7. There have been counsils, of Calchedon for instance, to which we can relate to certain verses in the NT but Romans 5:7? Do you know any?
The right word should be 'mistakes'. Scribal errors are likely to occur, but alterations are rare.
Reply
#3
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=119">viewtopic.php?f=8&t=119</a><!-- l -->
Reply
#4
IPOstapyuk Wrote:http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=119

This.
Reply
#5
:

So, it's very easy to make that mistake when translating from the Aramaic source text, showing it is the original reading. But can the reverse be shown? Can it be demonstrated how the Aramaic reading is the mistake?

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#6
Hi,

After seeing the D. Bauscher [DSS] thing, could this be a mistake from Aramaic-to-Aramaic?

Andrej Wrote:Not to say that i believe in Greek primacy or anything, but it may be entirely possible that an Aramaic copyist caused the change. Meaning, an Aramaic writer that copied the Aramaic NT from Aramaic to Aramaic may have misread that word, or may have (consciously or subconsciously) thought that it must be a mistake, and corrected it (since "righteous" makes much more immediate sense in the context). There is no reason for us to think that greek writers have less reading skills than Aramaic ones.


And regarding the posted link, consider this:

bar Sinko Wrote:Now the Aramaic Primacy argument is that Zorba confused this word reshey'a with reshyana, since the only difference between them is that the ein has been replaced with a nun, which look very similar in Estrangelo. The argument goes that reshyana means "righteous/blameless", so that's how the mistranslation came about.
...
However, reshyana does not actually mean "blameless". It means "blame" or "accusation". The phrase similar to it that means "blameless" is dla reshyan. This means that Zorba's eyes would have had not only to change an ein into a nun but also to ignore the alap on the end and add the word dla before it. Then, it means "blameless" and can be mistranslated into the Greek.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/Jennings/page.php?p=212">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/Jennings/page.php?p=212</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/PayneSmith/page.php?p=550">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/PayneSmith/page.php?p=550</a><!-- m -->

Now this is a much less solid argument than originally presented. Akhan Andrew doesn't even mention reshyana in his AENT. He claims that Zorba confused reshey'a with zadiyqa, but these words don't look at all similar.

Would the Peshitta manuscript reading be worthy of being suspected / distrusted?
Reply
#7
:

I respect it, if nothing else for the simple fact that it makes sense in the Aramaic text, in the verse and in the passage's context. The Greek version doesn't, but rather is awkward and senseless, and misses the context altogether. Greek primacists have noticed it for hundreds of years, and try to give their varied explanations for the awkward reading.
Reply
#8
Thirdwoe Wrote::

I respect it, if nothing else for the simple fact that it makes sense in the Aramaic text, in the verse and in the passage's context. The Greek version doesn't, but rather is awkward and senseless, and misses the context altogether. Greek primacists have noticed it for hundreds of years, and try to give their varied explanations for the awkward reading.

I agree Akhi, it makes no sense at all in the Greek, especially considering the very next verse.

And bar-Sinko was incorrect in his quote above, Reshyana is indeed an adjective, but the noun follows the exact same pattern as the adjective in the III-weak. It can be a noun meaning "blameless (one)".

+Shamasha
Reply
#9
Akhi Paul,

I would like to accept that I was mistaken, but can you help by pointing toward any evidence beyond your own native Aramaic?

Based on the concordance, I don't see any instance of "reshyana" in the Peshitta meaning "blameless", but only the opposite. Since this verse is a conspicuous one, and it has long bugged me -- both the illogical Greek version and the unsatisfactory explanations of how the Aramaic version could have been misread into the Greek -- I would like to be able to have some closure on it.

Thanks.

bar Sinko
Reply
#10
bar Sinko Wrote:Akhi Paul,

I would like to accept that I was mistaken, but can you help by pointing toward any evidence beyond your own native Aramaic?

Based on the concordance, I don't see any instance of "reshyana" in the Peshitta meaning "blameless", but only the opposite. Since this verse is a conspicuous one, and it has long bugged me -- both the illogical Greek version and the unsatisfactory explanations of how the Aramaic version could have been misread into the Greek -- I would like to be able to have some closure on it.

Thanks.

bar Sinko

Shlama Akhi Bar-Sinko,

Before I proceed with the explanation, I want to stress that we are merely suggesting what might have caused Zorba to misread the word for "wicked" in Aramaic (rshey'a). Ultimately, we all agree that the Greek is illogical. Note that our argument does not rest on this hypothetical scenario. The Aramaic still makes the most sense, the Greek makes no sense at all. It makes sense in 5:6, it makes sense in 5:8, just makes no sense at all in 5:7.

The Greek word dikaios, which is the word we contend was the result of a mistranslation, the root meaning is "correct/just/meet" (Philippians 1:7, 2Peter 1:13, Colossians 4:1). It is only by implication, "righteous." It is derived from the Greek root dike, meaning "justice/cause/right", interestingly enough there was a Greek goddess was named "Dike" who was the goddess of "justice".

There is no way for us to know how the Greek translator made the mistake, but we can be sure that it indeed was a mistake. I'm not married to any of these solutions, Dave Bauscher could be correct in his hypothesis too, that they misread Zadiqa (righteous). But we all agree, something was misread in the Greek. If any of us, or none of us, are correct in how it happened - the Aramaic still is the only version that makes any sense.

Here is another possibility:

Instead of confusing "R-$-Y-a-A" (Resh-Sheen-Yodh-Ayin-Aleph), "wicked"), the Greek translator may have read "R-Y-$-Y-A" (Resh-Yodh-Sheen-Yodh-Aleph) - the root R-Y-$, meaning "fine/first/head/best/noble/choice/fine/admirable, etc". http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjps.php?jpspage=540(see bottom of left side)

The confusion of the Ayin and Yudh could easily be explained, they look alike (we've spoken about this before on this forum.) It's also easy to explain confusing the first Yodh - the letter Resh is standalone (unattached), meaning the following Sheen in the early manuscript could have had a tall right hook resembling a Yodh.

Here are how the words look:

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]09y4r[/font] (Rshey'a - wicked)
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0y4yr[/font] (Reshaya - best/excellent/first/noble/admirable, etc.)

Be sure to have the Estrangelo font installed so you can see the above.

There are many different ways this could have happened, but to suggest the Aramaic is wrong or altered: how would an Aramaic translator confuse the Greek in this case (which is a very common word in the GNT) - and, in doing so, happen to smooth out a very rough (impossible) reading in the Greek ?

IMO, there has been way too much emphasis here on the "how", which we can never be sure of. We can only throw out guesses. Split-words (polysemy) or poems are one thing, to prove exactly what the early scribe must've been thinking in this case is next to impossible.

+Shamasha
Reply
#11
Hi Paul,

Could the Ayin and Yodh be confused in DSS script? and also in the Hebrew square script?

~And I honestly don't know if I was suggesting Greek primacy, but I actaully was suspecting Aramaic-to-Aramaic mistake / alteration -- suspecting the Greek could have got dikaios from a earlier Aramaic recension. But.. this covers it:
Paul Younan Wrote:The Aramaic still makes the most sense, the Greek makes no sense at all. It makes sense in 5:6, it makes sense in 5:8, just makes no sense at all in 5:7.In any case, again there is no way for us to know how the Greek translator made the mistake, but we can be sure that it indeed was a mistake.If any of us, or none of us, are correct in how it happened - the Aramaic still is the only version that makes any sense.

& Thank you for the rshey^a and reshaya examples.

At this point, I have to admit, the Greek is just wrong here. Thanks everyone for this discussion. Romans 5:7, tell you the truth, was starting to really bother me.

But, there is another passage in the Peshitta which bothers me. Something doesn't seem right in it. I'll post later.
~DC
Reply
#12
Quote:But, there is another passage in the Peshitta which bothers me. Something doesn't seem right in it. I'll post later.
~DC

This is like the end of an exciting show, where they leave you hanging with a teaser at the end, just before the screen goes black...lol

Great discussion all, thanks.

Chuck
Reply
#13
Peschito Wrote:And Yeshu came near, and discoursed with them, and said to them: All authority is given to me, in heaven and on earth. And as my Father sent me, so also I send you.
Go you, therefore, and instruct all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

all known Greek Matthew manuscripts Wrote:And Iesous came to them and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go you therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

This underlined verse is found in the gospel of Yokhanan, and as you know, occurs in the Peshitta Matthew also, but the Greek text lacks it in it's Matthew. How could have all the Zorbas missed it, and nobody noticed it?

Is this reading present in all known Peshitta texts (Eastern and Western).
Reply
#14
Problematic on its surface and one must dig to find a possible answer. I dug a little below the surface to see what I could find...

I haven't checked it myself, but David Bauscher says that at least one Western Greek Ms. has the Peshitta reading for Matthew 28:18.

Also, the Diatessaron shows that it was present in the text of Matthew which Tatian used to make his harmony of the Gospels in about 155 A.D. Tatian's Diatessaron has both the long reading of Matt 28:18 and the like reading as found in John 20:21, in their proper place, so, clearly he had both readings present in his very early copies of the Gospels, which I believe were Aramaic texts.

As David Bauscher points out, this could mean that there was only ONE Greek translation made of the Aramaic source text, and that the Aramaic Ms. used, either lacked that portion of the verse, or the Scribe simply missed it, and the majority of the Greek copies followed the mistake unknowingly. But not all...it seems. Perhaps the one Western Ms. which has the long Peshitta reading is a copy of an early revision of the Greek, made by comparing a Greek text against the Aramaic, and fixed the mistake. It?s Possible.

Shlama,
Chuck

..
Reply
#15
DrawCloser wrote:
Quote:This underlined verse is found in the gospel of Yokhanan, and as you know, occurs in the Peshitta Matthew also, but the Greek text lacks it in it's Matthew. How could have all the Zorbas missed it, and nobody noticed it?
This verse is NOT found in Yukhanan but this trinity formula is found only in Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." this formula contradicts to all New Testament and I was very disappointed when I found it in Peshitta too. All the NT demands only baptizing in the name of Jesus.

On the other side this formula is absent in Hebrew Matthew Gospel of Shem Tov.

How all the Zorbas missed it?
Look here
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org//forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3437">http://www.peshitta.org//forum/viewtopi ... =17&t=3437</a><!-- m -->
what you think?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)