1st Cor. 7:36

[Larry Kelsey]

Shlama Akhay,

This post contains 47 replies so I'll try to catch some of the highlights while also posting the URL just in case anyone has the will-power and the desire to go over the whole discussion.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1082.html#">http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1082.html#</a><!-- m -->

Larry_Kelsey "1 Cor. 7:36"
Jun-30-2002 at 04:53 AM (GMT3)

Shlama Akhay,

The gender of the person doing the misbehaving represents the contrast between the Greek text and the Eastern text in 1 Cor. 7:36.

The Greek Interlinear based on the Byzantine text starts this way: ei de (but if) tis (anyone he) aschemonein (behaves unseemly) epi ten (to) parthenon (virginity)..."

Murdock's translation from the Aramaic text begins as follows: "But if any one thinketh that there is reproach, on account of his maiden daughter..." The emphasis is on the reproach of the daughter as opposed to the man interacting with a man's daughter. Correct me if I'm wrong akhi Paul!

Also the Greek Interlinear based on the Byzantine text reads..."if he be beyond his prime..."

Murdock's translation of the Peshitta reads:"... because she hath passed her time..."

Also, the Greek Interlinear based on the Byzantine text is very brief in comparison with the Aramaic text translated by James Murdock.
The next portion of this verse will show what I mean.... "...kai (and) outos (so) opheilei (it ought) ginesthai (to be,)..."

Compare this with the more wordy scenario of the Aramaic Peshitta as translated by James Murdock.
"...and he hath not presented her to a husband, and it be fitting that he present her..."

Finally, the Greek text is rendered "...let them marry."

The Aramaic text would be rendered "...let her be married."

Could we see an interlinear from your hand on this verse, akhi Paul? My curiosity is at an 'all time high' on how you would approach this!

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey

Paul Younan 2. "RE: 1 Cor. 7:36"
Jun-30-2002 at 08:16 AM (GMT3)

Shlama Khabri Larry,

>The emphasis is on the
>reproach of the daughter as
>opposed to the man interacting
>with a man's daughter. Correct
>me if I'm wrong akhi
>Paul!

You're correct Akhi.

> Could we see an interlinear
>from your hand on this
>verse, akhi Paul? My curiosity
>is at an 'all time
>high' on how you would
>approach this!

Sure -

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nyd $n0 J0 [/font](But if a man)
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Xzbtmd rbs [/font](feels he is mocked/derided/reproached)
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hnbz rb9d htlwtbb [/font](on account of his virgin (daughter) who has passed her (prime) time)
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rbgl hbhy fw [/font](yet he has not given her to a man (in marriage))
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hyltnd 0ylww [/font](and it be fitting that he give her (in marriage))
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]db9n 0bcd Ky0 [/font](let him do as he thinks (best))
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0=x f [/font](he does not err)
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Gwdzt [/font](allow her to marry)

The key to the mistranslation is that Zorba failed to recognize that [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Xzbtm[/font] is in the EthPeal Participle form ('he is mocked/jeered/reproached') as opposed to the Active Participle form [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Xzbm[/font] ('he is mocking/jeering/reproaching.') Notice there is only one letter difference (a Taw).

Perhaps he misread or the manuscript he was translating from had the spelling error. Regardless, the differene in meaning is tremendous. In the Greek you have a man mocking his daughter because she's single and not a spring chicken anymore - while the Aramaic portrays more accurately the social ramifications of having an unmarried older daughter back in those days.

What I'm about to say sounds aweful to our Western mind - but back then in that culture if a woman passed her prime child-bearing age, her father was reluctant to give her in marriage since he saw no use in doing so. Not only that, but he would be made fun of - and people would wonder why he would give her in marriage at such a late age if the promise of children was bleak.

A man felt as if he would be sinning if he gave his daughter in marriage for any other purpose other than the divine command to procreate. Any other reason would be looked upon as carnal.

The Apostle Paul's saying - don't worry, follow your heart - you're not sinning if you give her in marriage past her child-bearing years. Let her marry, if she wants to.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fk^rwbw 0ml4[/font]