Does Janet Magiera count as a ‘current critical scholar’?
How about Metzger?

The Greek translation of the original Aramaic has added glosses that explicitly give translations of Aramaic.
I count 10 glosses in Greek mss. of the gospels (plus 1 gloss in Acts).
Both the Aramaic Peshitta and the Arabic Diatesseron lack those glosses.

Do you think those glosses:
were in the original writing of the Greek, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?
arose during the translation of the Aramaic gospels & Acts into Greek?

Do you think Tatian, when assembling his Diatesseron, used gospels that:
had glosses, and then he deleted the glosses before completing his Diatesseron project?
lacked glosses?

Matthew 27:46 (NIV)
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Mark 5:41 (NASB)
Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, “Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”).

Mark 7:11 (Anderson NT)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, What ever of mine might benefit you, is Corban, (which means, a gift,)

Mark 7:34 (NIV)
He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means “Be opened!”).

Mark 10:46 (NIV)
Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means “son of Timaeus”), was sitting by the roadside begging.

John 1:38 (Berean Literal)
Then Jesus having turned and having beheld them following, says to them, “What do you seek?” And they said to Him, “Rabbi” (which being translated is to say Teacher), “where are You staying?”

John 1:41 (Berean Literal)
He first finds the own brother Simon and says to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Christ).

John 1:42 (NIV)
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

John 4:25 (NIV)
The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

John 9:7 (NASB)
and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.

Acts 9:36 (Berean Study)
In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which is translated as Dorcas), who was always occupied with works of kindness and charity.

“her academic history? Where did she study? What degrees does she have? Peer-reviewed publications?”
All I found was this:

** you do not have permission to see this link **
Janet Magiera is an ordained minister and the founder of Light of the Word Ministry A language student since childhood, Jan fell in love with Aramaic in 1979 while studying under a student of Dr. George Lamsa. She started learning how to understand Aramaic and has not stopped for 40 years. In 2004, Jan became frustrated by the lack of credible and accessible Aramaic translations of the Bible. Aside from Lamsa, there were only a few old English translations from the 1850’s. Who wants to teach the Bible using the oldest continuously written language of the Middle East translated into the oldest English ever known? She felt it was past time that an accurate and modern translation be written. At that moment, she began to work on the translation herself, something well-researched, easy to understand, and available to everyone. In 2006, the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Library was born and now includes an interlinear, lexicon, concordance, Messianic version, and parallel translations. Jan has also authored topical books on Biblical subjects, including giving, ministries, the armor of God, Hebrew and Aramaic word pictures, and end-times events.

“was not a Peshitta primacist”
Agreed. Is Metzger a “current critical scholar”?
How about Wallace?

“those glosses:  were in the original writing of the Greek, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?”
“That sounds reasonable”
Suppose one document is had in 2 different languages.
The version of the document in language X contains glosses.
The version of the document in language Z lacks those glosses.
Does the presence of glosses, and does the absence of glosses, indicate anything about the original language of composition?

Does the presence of untranslated transliterations in a document suggest that that document:
is in the original language of composition?
is a translation?

“the glosses wouldn’t be needed in Syriac”
Were the explanations in the verses below needed?

Matthew 1:23 (Bauscher)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Behold the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bear a son, and they shall call his Name
Emmanuail, which is translated, ‘Our God is with us'”.

Mark 15:34 (Bauscher)
biblehub.com/hpbt/mark/15.htm
And in the ninth hour Yeshua cried out in a loud voice, and he said:
“Eil, Eil, lemana Shabaqthani”, which is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Mat 27:33 (Magiera)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is interpreted, “The Skull.”

Mar 15:22 (Magiera)
And they brought him to Golgotha, the place that is interpreted, The Skull.

Joh 19:17 (Magiera)
bearing his cross, to a place that was called ‘The Skull,’ but in Hebrew is called Golgotha,

Joh 20:16 (Magiera)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jesus said to her, “Mary.” And she turned around and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbuli,” which means Teacher.

Hebrews 7 (Bauscher)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 This Melchizedek is The King of Shalim, Priest of The Most High God, and he met Abraham when he returned from the massacre of Kings and blessed him.
2 And Abraham distributed to him a tenth of everything that he had with him; but his name is interpreted, “King of Righteousness”
and again “King of Shalim”,
which is, “King of Peace”,

//////////////////////////////////
using google translate on Dutch from ** you do not have permission to see this link **

John 20:16 – Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabbuli!” that is, “My Master.”
        in Hebrew!] – this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek NA28. The text is missing from the reading of the Greek MHT and TR.
        Rabbuli!] – this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: ‘Rabboeni’, which is not a Greek term of address, by the way, but a transcription in Greek of the Aramaic term of address, whereby we should know that in Aramaic ‘Rabbuli’ and ‘Rabboeni mean the same. The fact that we read in this verse “in Hebrew” (‹i.e. in the Aramaic Peshitta and in the Greek NA28, but not in the Greek MHT and TR›), has to do with the fact that Aramaic was written in Hebrew letters.

Matthew 27:33 – (When) they came to the place called ‘Gagulta’, meaning ‘The Skull’,
        Gagulta – this is the Hebrew name according to Jh. 19:17 after the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta, but essentially that name is Aramaic so that in this verse we find two Aramaic words for ‘skull’, namely, the word used here ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ (‹qarqafta›) translated as ‘Skull’ and the word ܓ݁ܳܓ݂ܽܘܠܬ݁ܳܐ (‹Gagulta›).

In the Hebrew OT there are two Hebrew words for ‘skull’. One of them is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (‹gulgolet – H1538›). See also the note to Jh. 19:17. The names ‘Golgotha’ and ‘Gagulta’ differ in sound. We suspect that the names “Golgotha” and “Gagulta” represent two varieties of Aramaic, possibly the Aramaic of Jerusalem and that of Galilee.
        The Skull – this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: ‘The Place of the Skull’.

John 19:17 – He carried his cross to the place called ‘The Skull’, but in Hebrew it is called ‘Gagulta’.
        He carried his cross – this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek MHT and TR. The reading of the Greek NA28 reads: ‘He Himself bore his cross’.
        The Skull – this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: ‘The Place of the Skull’.
        Hebrew – According to Jastrow’s dictionary of Aramaic, the word “Hebrew” in Aramaic can also mean “Aramaic”, the language of the Peshitta. Aramaic was and is written by the Jews in Hebrew letters.
        Gagulta – this is the Hebrew name according to Jh. 19:17 after the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta, but essentially that name is Aramaic so that we find in this verse two Aramaic words for ‘skull’, namely the word used here ܩܰܪܩܰܦ݂ܬ݂ܳܐ (‹qarqaftā›) translated as ‘Skull’ and the word ܓ݁ܳܓ݂ܽܘܠܬ݁ܳܐ (‹Gāgūlṫā›).
In the Hebrew OT there are two Hebrew words for ‘skull’. One of them is גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (‹gūlgolēt – H1538›). …. The names ‘Golgotha’ and ‘Gagulta’ differ in sound. We suspect that the names “Golgotha” and “Gagulta” represent two varieties of Aramaic, possibly the Aramaic of Jerusalem and that of Galilee.

When Mt 1:16 and 1:19 were originally written, do you think it had the same word in both locations to describe Joseph?

Matthew 1:16
** you do not have permission to see this link **
ton/ τὸν/ the
435 [e]/ andra/ ἄνδρα
Marias/ Μαρίας/ of Mary

Matthew 1:19
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Iōsēph/   Ἰωσὴφ/  Joseph
de/ δὲ/ now
ho/ ὁ/ the
435 [e] anēr/ ἀνὴρ
autēs/ αὐτῆς/ of her

Matthew 1:16 (REV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
and Jacob fathered Joseph the father^c of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

About the Revised English Version
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The REV project has now gone on for over twenty years, and many different people have been involved over the years. Translation work is continuing steadily in both the Old and New Testaments, and the commentary is constantly expanding.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
and Jacob fathered Joseph the father^a of Mary,
from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.   
________________________________________
a[16]
The Greek is usually translated “husband”
________________________________________
“father.” The Greek is anēr (#435 ἀνήρ), and means “an adult human male.” Anēr is generally assumed to mean “husband” in this verse, but that cannot be the case. For one thing, the list of the three sets of 14 generations that go from Abraham to Christ (vv. 2-16), makes this impossible. If Joseph is the husband of Mary, there would only be 13 generations in the last list of “14 generations.” Also, the Aramaic text reads differently in this verse than it does in verse 19, and in verse 19 Joseph is unmistakably referred to as the “husband” of Mary. The difference in the vocabulary indicates a difference in the relationship.

The Gospel of Matthew contains the genealogy from David to Jesus via his mother Mary. In contrast, the Gospel of Luke contains the genealogy from David to Jesus via his adopted father, Joseph. There has been a lot of controversy about the genealogy of Jesus because at first reading, both Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 seem to indicate a genealogy that comes through Joseph, which is confusing. For one thing, Joseph ends up with two different fathers, “Jacob” (Matt. 1:16) and “Heli” (Luke 3:23), and Mary, who is the blood link between David and Jesus, ends up having no genealogy in the Bible.
Different scholars have….

Mary does have a genealogy in the Bible, and it is in the Gospel of Matthew. However, it can seem like Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph. However, if Matthew’s genealogy is about Joseph, then there are some significant problems in the biblical text. One is that Joseph would then have two contradictory genealogies in the Bible while Mary had no genealogy. An even larger problem, however, is a mathematical one. If Joseph is counted as the “husband” of Mary (Matt. 1:16), there are only 13 generations from the carrying away to Babylon to Christ, and not 14 generations, as Matthew 1:17 says there are: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are 14 generations, and from David to the carrying away to Babylon are 14 generations, and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ are 14 generations.”

The first set of 14 generations, from Abraham to David, are: 1) Abraham, 2) Isaac, 3) Jacob, 4) Judah, 5) Perez, 6) Hezron, 7) Ram, 8) Amminadab, 9) Nahshon, 10) Salmon, 11) Boaz, 12) Obed, 13) Jesse, 14) David.
The second set of 14 generations, from David to the carrying away to Babylon, are:
1) Solomon, 2) Rehoboam, 3) Abijah, 4) Asa, 5) Jehoshaphat, 6) Jehoram, 7) Uzziah, 8) Jotham, 9) Ahaz, 10) Hezekiah, 11) Manasseh, 12) Amon, 13) Josiah, 14) Jeconiah
When it comes to the last list of 14 generations, however, if we count the generations as they are translated in most Bibles, there are only 13 generations although Scripture says there are 14 generations. 1) Shealtiel, 2) Zerubbabel, 3) Abiud, 4) Eliakim, 5) Azor, 6) Zadok, 7) Akim, 8) Eliud, 9) Eleazar, 10) Mattan, 11) Jacob, 12) Joseph (the husband of Mary), 13) Jesus.

The problem with the list is obvious and has been pointed out by many commentators: it has only 13 generations, not 14 like Scripture says. Some scholars have tried to solve the problem by doing such things as counting names twice, but that hardly does justice to the text.

It was very important that Matthew portray a pattern of three sets of 14 generations. We know that because if we count the actual generations, there were more than just 42 people (3 times 14) from Abraham to Christ. To make the pattern fit, some people had to be left out of Matthew’s list. When the genealogy in Matthew is compared with the other genealogies in the Bible, it is clear that there are people missing from Matthew’s genealogy. For example, in Matthew 1:8, between Jehoram and Uzziah, there are actually three unmentioned generations. Jehoram begat Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), who begat Joash (also called Jehoash; 2 Kings 11:2, 21), who begat Amaziah (2 Kings 12:21). These three names do not appear in Matthew, and there are some other unmentioned names as well.
Although there are some names missing from Matthew’s list, it was not essential to give every name in a biblical genealogy of kings. Many genealogical lists in the Bible have names missing for various reasons. What was important to Matthew is that he set forth the genealogy of Jesus in a pattern of three sets of 14 generations from Abraham to Christ. Therefore, to have only 13 names in the last set of 14 tells us something is very wrong. But if we closely examine the list, we see that it does have 14 names, and thus 14 generations if each name represents a generation.

Mary is not usually counted in the list of 14 because she and Joseph are usually thought of as husband and wife and thus in the same generation. However, there is good evidence that “Joseph” is not only the name of Mary’s husband, but also the name of her father as well. That would not be unusual in the biblical culture, because Joseph was a common name. For example, in the Roman Catholic Bible, which includes the Apocrypha, there are 16 different people named Joseph, not counting Mary’s father, who would make 17.

If the “Joseph” in Matthew 1:16 was the father of Mary, not her husband, then there would be 14 generations from Babylon to Christ, just like Scripture says there is: 1) Shealtiel, 2) Zerubbabel, 3) Abiud, 4) Eliakim, 5) Azor, 6) Zadok, 7) Akim, 8) Eliud, 9) Eleazar, 10) Mattan, 11) Jacob, 12) Joseph (the father of Mary), 13) Mary, 14) Jesus.

That Matthew contains Mary’s genealogy and Luke contains Joseph’s genealogy makes sense because Mary’s genealogy in Matthew does not mention Joseph, her husband, who was not part of her genealogy anyway, nor does Joseph’s genealogy in Luke mention Mary, who had nothing to do with his genealogy. In Mary’s genealogy in Matthew, four other women are mentioned, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “Uriah’s wife,” emphasizing the role that women play in a genealogy. Joseph’s genealogy in Luke does not include any women but does include two of his ancestors who were also named Joseph.

There is still one important thing to resolve. Most versions translate Matthew 1:16 to say that Joseph was the “husband” of Mary, not the “father” of Mary. However, we believe that “husband” is a mistranslation. The Greek word translated “husband” is aner, and means an adult male. Usually when aner is used with the phrase “of [a woman’s name], such as in “Joseph, the aner of Mary,” it refers to the woman’s husband. But there is good evidence that in this verse aner should be translated “father.” First, translating it “husband” creates a contradiction in the Word of God because then there are not 14 generations from Babylon to Christ. Second, it creates a confusing situation in the Word because both Matthew and Luke then refer to Joseph’s genealogy, such that Joseph ends up with two different fathers.

Thankfully, the Aramaic text of Matthew has good evidence that Matthew 1:16 should read “father.” In the Greek text, both Matthew 1:16 and 1:19 use the word aner (“man” or “husband”). Matthew 1:19 clearly refers to Joseph as the “husband” of Mary because it speaks of Joseph thinking of divorcing her. However, the Aramaic text of Matthew does not use the same word in Matthew 1:16 and 1:19, but has two different words, and thus makes a distinction between the two men. In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is gavra, which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband,” while in Matthew 1:19 the word is bala, which is “man” or “husband.” Thus the Aramaic text preserves the truth that there is a difference between the “Joseph” of verse 16, the “mighty man” of Mary, and the “Joseph” of verse 19, the “husband” of Mary.

Once we realize that “Joseph” is the name of both the father and the husband of Mary, the Word of God fits together perfectly. Both the genealogies of Mary and Joseph are in the Bible so that everyone could see they were both descendants of David and thus Jesus was indeed, “the Son of David.” Scripture also shows in other places that both Joseph and Mary are from David (Joseph: Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4. Mary: Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3). Luke contains the genealogy of Jesus via his adopted father, Joseph, and never mentions Mary, who was not part of Joseph’s genealogy. Matthew contains the genealogy of Jesus through his mother Mary, and never mentions her husband Joseph. Joseph has two ancestors also named Joseph in his genealogy, while four other women are included in Mary’s genealogy. Last but not least, the three sets of 14 generations mentioned in Matthew are all complete when we realize Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is Mary’s father.

Are you aware of any mistakes in the Peshitta?

[Paul Younan]”point me to a mistake in the Aramaic Peshitta which arose from a grammatical error while translating from the Greek. In your model, there should be plenty that exist. ….point me to one error in the Peshitta which can only be explained by the Aramaic translator making a grammatical mistake that could have only happened if he had a Greek original in front of him.”

Regarding these 4 sets of passages, which passage rendition originated:
first?
second?

A) the Aramaic underlying:
1Co 16:22 (Magiera, who translated the Aramaic ‘m-r-n a-th-a’ as “our Lord comes”)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Whoever does not love our Lord Jesus Christ will be cursed.
Our Lord comes.

B) the Greek underlying this, with the Greek “Μαρὰν ἀθά” being an untranslated transliteration of Aramaic)
1 Cor 16:22
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Webster’s Bible) If any man loveth not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maran-atha.
(NA28) εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Μαρὰν / μαρανα ἀθά / θα.
(RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005) Εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν χριστόν, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Μαρὰν ἀθά.

====================
a) the Aramaic underlying:
Mark 14:36 (Bauscher, with the Aramaic having “A-b-a, A-b-i”)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And he said, “Father, my Father, you can do everything;
let this cup pass from me,
yet not my own will, but yours.”

b) the Greek underlying:
Mark 14:36 (Berean Literal, with the Greek Ἀββᾶ/ Abba being a transliteration of Aramaic, followed by Patēr/ Πατήρ/ Father)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And He was saying, “Abba, Father, all things _are_ possible to You;
take away this cup from Me;
but not what I will, but what You _will_.”

====================
A’) the Aramaic underlying:
Romans 8:15 (Etheridge, with the Aramaic having “A-b-a, A-b-u-n”)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For we have not received the spirit of servitude again unto fear,
but we have received the Spirit of the adoption
[Rucho da-simath benayo: The Spirit of the constituting of sons.] of sons,
by whom we cry, Father, our Father!

B’) the Greek underlying:
Romans 8:15 (Berean Literal, with the Greek Ἀββᾶ/ Abba being a transliteration of Aramaic, followed by “ho/ ὁ /who, which, what, that
Patēr/ Πατήρ/ Father”)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to fear,
but you have received _the_ Spirit of divine adoption as sons,
by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

====================
a’) the Aramaic underlying:
Galatians 4:6 (Etheridge, with the Aramaic having “A-b-a, A-b-u-n”)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And because you are sons,
Aloha hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,
who crieth, Father, our Father.

b’) the Greek underlying:
Galatians 4:6 (Berean Literal, with the Greek Ἀββᾶ/ Abba being a transliteration of Aramaic, followed by “ho/ ὁ /who, which, what, that
Patēr/ Πατήρ/ Father”)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And because you are sons,
God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,
crying out, “Abba, Father!”

“The gospels were originally written in Greek”
Evidence?

“So-called ‘Aramaisms’ in the Greek text actually speak against an Aramaic original”
How so?– could you elaborate?

“Attempts to invent an Aramaic literary layer are efforts to build a chain of transmission back to a Palestinian milieu and a connection to the historical Jesus”
Do you think there was a ‘Q’?
If ‘yes,’ what language(s) was it in?

_An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke_

_New Chapters in New Testament Study_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1937), 223pp., on 157-159
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The weakness of the Aramaic method is shown by its treatment of the word pygme, “with the fist,” in Mark 7:3.

How do you think Mark 7:3 originally read?:
“unless they ceremonially [literally: “with a fist”] wash [their] hands”?
“unless they carefully wash their hands”?

How do you think Lk 21:12-13 ought read?
How about: Jn 4:35-36? Jn 7:21-22? Lk 24:9-10?

Do you see any flaws in the Torrey below?

** you do not have permission to see this link **
Mark 7:3:
TEXT: “unless they ceremonially wash [their] hands”
EVIDENCE: A B D K L X Theta Pi f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect most lat syr(h)margin
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSVn NASV NIV NEBn TEV
RANK: A
NOTES: “unless they wash [their] hands”
EVIDENCE: Delta syr(s) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: RSV* NEB
NOTES: “unless they frequently wash [their] hands”
EVIDENCE: S W three lat vg syr(p,h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NEBn
COMMENTS: The word translated “ceremonially” literally means “with a fist.” Since the exact ceremony referred to is unknown, some copyists omitted the word while others replaced it with a word that makes more sense.

4435. pugmé
** you do not have permission to see this link **
pugmé: the fist
Original Word: πυγμή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pugmé
Phonetic Spelling: (poog-may’)
Definition: the fist
Usage: the fist.

Mark 7:3, ** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Etheridge) For all the Jihudoyee and Pharishee, unless they carefully wash their hands, do not eat, because they hold the tradition of the elders;
(Murdock) For all the Jews and the Pharisees, unless they carefully wash their hands do not eat; because they hold fast the tradition of the Elders.

===============
_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 4-5
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The great freedom in the order of words of the Aram. sentence, and especially the manner of emphasizing a word by putting it at the beginning or end of a clause, occasionally produced ambiguity, as the translator rendered word by word. In this way arose the strange reading in Mk. 7:3, where the Jews are said to wash their hands “with the fist.”

Hence also the “already,” which in the Aram. of Jn. 4 stood at the end of vs. 35, was by the Grk. translator made to stand at the beginning of vs. 36. Argument for the date of the Gospel has been based on this translator’s error– for such it certainly is.

Another similar instance is the false position of the phrase “because of this”… which now forms the beginning of Jn. 7:22, whereas it was intended to end the preceding verse. Ordinarily, indeed, it stands at the head of its sentence or clause.

The frequently abrupt beginning of the Aram. sentence, without introductory conjunction or adverb, sometimes misleads the Grk. translator, where the context leaves room for doubt as to the connection intended. An example is Lk. 21:12 f., where the parallels in Mk. and Mt. [Mt 10:18, Mk 13:9] make it certain that the true reading is: “Before kings and governors, for my name’s sake, you will be brought for testimony.”

A more important instance is the passage Lk. 24:9 ff., in which the honor of being the first to bring to the disciples the news of the resurrection is by the Grk. translator taken away from Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and given to “the other women.”

CVB 2.3, Luke
21:12 But before all these things,
they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you,
delivering you up to synagogues and prisons,
bringing you before kings and governors for my name’s sake.
21:13 It will turn out as a testimony for you.

Lk 21:12-13 (based on Younan)
But before all these things,
they will lay hands upon you and persecute you,
and they will deliver you to the assemblies and to the prisons,
and they will bring you before malka [kings] and governors because of my name,
but it will be to you for a testimony.

Mark 7:3 (King James)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Pulpit Commentary
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Verse 3. – Except they wash their hands oft. The Greek word here rendered “oft” is πυγμῇ: literally, with the fist, i.e. with the closed hand, rubbing one against the other. This word has caused a vast amount of criticism; and the difficulty of explaining it seems to have led to the adoption of a conjectural reading (πυκνῷς or πυκνῇ) rendered “oft;” crebro in the Vulgate. But the Syriac Peshito Version renders the Greek word by a word which means “diligently,” and it is interesting and helpful, as a matter of exegesis, to know that it also renders the Greek word (ἐπιμελῶς) in Luke 15:8 by the same Syriac synonym, “diligently.”

4435. pugmé
** you do not have permission to see this link **
pugmé: the fist
Original Word: πυγμή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pugmé
Phonetic Spelling: (poog-may’)
Definition: the fist
Usage: the fist.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from pux (the fist)
Definition
the fist

John 4:35-36 (NABRE)
35 Do you not say, ‘In four months the harvest will be here’? I tell you, look up and see the fields ripe for the harvest. 36 The reaper is already[b] receiving his payment and gathering crops for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper can rejoice together.
b: Already: this word may go with the preceding verse rather than with Jn 4:36.

John 7 (Berean Literal Bible)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
21 Jesus answered and said to them, “I did one work, and you all marvel.
22 Because of the fact that Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers) also on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.

CVB, Lk 24
24:8 They remembered his words, 24:9 returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 24:10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles.

Luke 24 (based on Younan)
8. And they remembered his words. 9. And they returned from the grave and told all these things to the eleven and to the rest. 10. Now they were Maryam of Magdala and Yokan and Maryam the mother of Yaqub and others who were with them, those who had told the Shelikha [Apostles].

Do you agree with this Goodspeed?:

_New Chapters in New Testament Study_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1937), 223pp., on 165
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The advocates of the Aramaic school…. give us no list of Aramaic works created in Palestine in the first half of the first century. There is no record of any written composition in Aramaic at that time.

_Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic_ (2015), 265pp.

_Classifying the Aramaic Texts From Qumran: A Statistical Analysis of Linguistic Features_, Library of Second Temple Studies 89 (2017), 350pp.

_Vision, Narrative, and Wisdom in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran_ (2019)

_A Handbook of the Aramaic Scrolls from the Qumran Caves: Manuscripts, Language, and Scribal Practices_, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 140 (2023)

This book provides the first comprehensive treatment of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls from the caves of Qumran. These nearly one hundred scrolls open a window onto a vibrant period of Jewish history for which we previously had few historical sources. Scholars and advanced students will find a general introduction to the corpus, detailed, richly-illustrated profiles of individual scrolls, and up-to-date studies of their Aramaic language and scribal practices. The goal of the book is to foster and support further study of these scrolls against the historical backdrop of early Judaism and ancient Mediterranean scribal cultures.