- Since it occurs to me that many members may not have access to a Sahidic text, but might wish to check the statements we ve made characterizing whateverMessage 1 of 45 , Nov 9, 2008View SourceSince it occurs to me that many members may not have access to
a Sahidic text, but might wish to check the statements we've made
characterizing whatever patterns or lack thereof exist between
'kOhet' and 'sate' in the Sahidic NT, this note lists the verses in
question. Although this is rather dry and can be safely ignored by
those not interested in the topic, the reason for producing this list
isn't entirely anal-retentiveness, as I've always been of the belief
that the data used for interpretations should be publicly verifiable.
After all, someone may spot a pattern that Don and I missed.
(Note that as explained previously, this list is based on the usage
of the word 'pur' in the Greek text. There may be a few other places
where the Sahidic NT employs 'kOhet' or 'sate'. On the Coptic CD,
for example, Jn 1:33 seems to have been assimilated to Mt 3:11
to add 'and with fire' to 'he will baptize with the Holy Spirit'.)
Group 1: insufficient evidence
> Jn: kOhet at 15:6, no sate'sGroup 2: more sate's than kOhet's:
> Jude: kOhet at 7, sate at 23
> Mk: 3 sate's, 1 kOhet (+ 1 kOhet for 'phOs')... sate at 9:43, 9:48, 9:49; kOhet at 9:22 (and 14:54)
> Mt: 10 sate's, 2 kOhet's... sate at 3:10,11&12, 5:22, 7:19, 13:42&50, 18:8&9, 25:41
... kOhet at 13:40, 17:15
> Heb: 3 sate's, 1 kOhet... sate at 1:7, 11:34, 12:18; kOhet at 12:29
Group 3: more kOhet's than sate's:
> Lk: 5 kOhet's, 1 sate (+ 1 kOhet for 'phOs')... kOhet at 3:9 & 16, 9:54, 12:49, 17:29 (and 22:56)
... sate at 3:17
> Acts: 4 kOhet's, no sate's... kOhet at 2:3, 2:19, 7:30, 28:5
... (note that count changed becuz 28:2&3 are 'pura', not 'pur')
> Paul: 4 kOhet's, 1 sate (both in 1 Cor 3:13!)... kOhet at Rom 12:20, 1Cor 3:13&15, 2Th 1:8
> James: 3 kOhet's (3:5, 3:6, 5:3), no sate'sMike Grondin
> Rev: 23 kOhet's, 3 sate's (19:20, 20:14&15)
Mt. Clemens, MI
- [Maurice:] ... Hi Jack, I m just curious to know how you came up with the limit of 50 years. I haven t seen the translation yet, but it seems that it couldMessage 45 of 45 , Nov 13, 2008View Source[Maurice:]
> >Hi Jack,
> > Hi again, Don ....
> > .... both Jack's reference and your own as quoted are well known to
> > adept users of Howard's book. Having said this, and despite
> > Peterson's irresponsible criticism and review of the book (or half
> > of it), I can just tell that you will draw many rewards from your
> > $35 investment as indeed I have over the years.
> > Cheers !
> > Maurice Cormier
> I agree with this. I have Howard's book because the Hebrew Translation used
> in Evan Bohan is a fascinating witness to how it was translated about some
> 50 years before Shem Tov used it.
I'm just curious to know how you came up with the limit of "50 years." I haven't seen the translation yet, but it seems that it could have been lying around in a geniza for a long time, or kept to use for rhetorical purposes against the Christians.
> What were the Rabbis attempting to do?These all seem to be possibilities. Maybe a thorough study of the variant readings would betray some intent or agenda--and maybe not.
> Did they translate Matthew into Hebrew touse it for polemical purposes? Was
> it a translation by Conversos to convince Spanish authorities that
> "Marannos" were doing their catechism to avoid the inquisition?
Some variants seem to have arisen (through scribal error or intentionally) while the document was in the Hebrew stage of its transmission. An example is in Mt 7:6, where the canonical text has "Do not give that which is holy to dogs," and the Shem Tov/Howard text has "Do not give holy flesh to the dogs." It seems pretty obvious that this arose because of the similarity between "asher" and "bashar."