Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Were some parts of the Peshitta altered?
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.


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". 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.


Messages In This Thread
Re: Were some parts of the Peshitta altered? - by Paul Younan - 04-22-2013, 02:13 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)