Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Help Requested on New Aramaic Primacy thread
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Well I just started a my third Aramaic primacy thread on, and got a response from my chief Zorban nemesis. I'm including it bellow to get your blood boiling so you feel very motivated to help me in my righteous cause. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

"I've never fully bought this line about the NT being Aramaic in its textual heritage. One of the biggest holes in the theory is that no textual evidence lends itself to this theory of construction. Sure, one of the languages of the NT era was Aramaic but it is a difficult thing to suggest that our NT corpus derives completely from Aramaic documents. Looking at the Greek constructions of the NT there is nothing there at suggests anything but Greek foundation in creation. There is no thread of evidence textually to suggest that Aramaic was ever present in the NT manuscripts. One of the primary reasons for this is the matter that the OT quotations used in several of the Gospels and other NT books are translated into Greek from the Hebrew. To translate from Hebrew into Aramaic then into Greek is not a viable process to undertake. In the creation of the NT documents, particularly the epistolary literature, it was the work of a secretary and the particular apostle done in Greek which is how the text was formed.

Now it might be a sexy thing to say, well hey, this was Aramaic to begin with so we can probably explain away some textual issues. I just believe it is a credible position to take. The very nature of the Aramaic language, not to mention the Ugartic underpinnings, is not flexible enough to allow for easy transmission into Greek and find the texts as we have them today. Besides look at Mark, its clear that is dictation from Peter to Mark. Aramaic wasn't used.

Anyhoo...its lunchtime, maybe more when I get back."
anyway the first area I'm looking at is Targums quoting in the NT. I know from reading here that there are at least two good ones.

The quote from Christ about Hell, "and the worm shall never die", or whatever that verse is.

And I seem to recall theres another one. Anyway your help in finding or quoting this is appreciated. I did a search on targums, new testament, etc. and got a huge mess of threads <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

Anyway I'll keep looking but, bt in case I don't find your help is appreciated...
I have no time to read the whole thing, but I saw two lies in the first paragraph.

1) textual proof: 2 or more Greek manuscripts with various readings, stemming from one word in the peshitta - this is not a textual proof? please...

2) Greek construction? More like SOME Greek construction. More prevalent is Semtitic construction, and at various levels, suggesting books of different quality translations into Greek.

Now why do we never find "Greek split words" and Greek construction in the Peshitta?

A few loan words and they bust a nerve...
Well this is what I posted to try to build a case for the use of Targums in NT.

"Well I was combing the boards looking for a good New Testament Targum article or post and found this on
"the internet infidels Discussion Forum"

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> 1&pp=25

"Hi merle,
more evidence that the Jesus himself referred to Aramaic translations is suggested by Craig A. Evans, professor of biblical studies at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, Canada.

He writes...."evidence for this can be seen in the fact that when Jesus alludes to Scriptures in the Gospels, he usually does so in a manner that agrees with the Aramaic Targum, not the Greek or Hebrew versions. Some examples: In Mark 9:42 ?50, Jesus warns of judgment by speaking of Gehenna and alluding to Isaiah 66:24, "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." The word Gehenna does not appear in the Hebrew or Greek, but only in the Aramaic. In Matthew 26:52, Jesus commands his disciple to put away his sword, "for all those who take the sword, by the sword they will perish." These words, which aren't in our Hebrew-based Isaiah, probably allude to the Aramaic paraphrase of Isaiah 50:11: "all you who take a sword?go fall?on the sword which you have taken!" Jesus' well-known saying "Be merciful as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36) reflects the Aramaic expansion of Leviticus 22:28: "My people, children of Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth." And Jesus' very proclamation of the gospel, namely, that the kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:14?15), probably reflects the Aramaic paraphrasing of passages such as Isaiah 40:9 and 52:7. In these Aramaic paraphrases we find the distinctive words "The kingdom of your God is revealed!"

Understanding the usage of Aramaic in Jesus' time explains another often puzzling passage. In the parable of the wicked vineyard tenants (Mark 12:1?12), Jesus alludes to Isaiah 5:1?7. In the Hebrew version of Isaiah (on which our English translations are based), the people of Judah as a whole (and not their leaders) are condemned as guilty of bloodshed. But when Jesus told the parable, the ruling priests understood that Jesus had told the parable "against them." This is because Jesus applies the passage in his parable in a way that reflects the Aramaic Targum's interpretation of it, in which God's judgment is directed primarily against the temple establishment. (The tower of Isaiah's parable is understood as the temple, and the wine vat is understood as the altar.)"
Dave Bauscher was a good chap and a few weeks ago shared with me some research he did when I asked for a comparison between the peshitta and peshitto vs. the greek Kione texts.

Anyway that led to this post. (In a previous post Dave goes to great length to document the variation, between each book, in each version quite immpressively).

(Dave Bauscher)
"...There are only 99 letters more in The Western Version ! - 99.976665% overall text letter number agreement .
Western and Eastern Peshittas in text found in both.
John has the most variation between the two versions ; 99.90% agreement !
Apart from the Pericope de Adultera and the canon differences, these two ancient versions are practically identical !
This kind of agreement is unheard of among Greek mss; the only parallel is among Hebrew editions of the Old Testament Torah.

(Ooze Addai)
And Here's a citation from a Greek primacist about how proud they are of the reliability of the Greek text

"Geisler and Nix say, concerning the observations of Hort above, that "only about one-eighth of all the variants had any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one-sixtieth rise above 'trivialities', or can in any sense be called 'substantial variations'. Mathematically this would compute to a text that is 98.33 percent pure."

NOTE, the ancient Aramaic codexes have nearly perfect agreement and that actually includes "trivialities" which are what most the disagreement between texts is about. However in order to get a high agreement between texts on the Greek side, you actually need to ignore such things. Meaning the 1.67% percent of differeces are woppers or at least quite significant, the kinds of "read meat" material my threads on this issue have been based on in the past.

Anyway I seem to recall agreement between texts actually varies between 82-96% when you include all those "trivialities" and depending which manuscripts you are comparing, some are much worse than others. Which of course still beats out the other non Christian ancient works, by a bunch, they vary I recall between 65-92% so I recall from reading Joshua Mcdowell, or one of those big evangelical apologist guys... "
oozeaddai Wrote:Well this is what I posted to try to build a case for the use of Targums in NT.

"Well I was combing the boards looking for a good New Testament Targum article or post and found this on
"the internet infidels Discussion Forum"

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> 1&pp=25
Hi oozeaddai, unfortunately the article i quoted there by Craig Evans is no longer avaliable free of charge on the net, but here is another one you may be able to use.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... script.htm</a><!-- m -->
Thanks <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

So how you doing?

I studied some of your debates, last night. I thought you did very well! It seems like one weakness that the Zorbans will exploit is not just the ancient documents issues, but how many existing manuscripts you got and what kind of variation.

So after I saw you get ganged up on, on that issue I decided to try to flesh that out a little more. And did find a little bit on that issue.

PAul in cites voobus, studying 40 something manuscripts with little variation, and another person cites, 250+ total manuscripts. I think they actually codexes, basically an old canon.. Anyway I got those bookmarked. And if I have to cite them, I will have to ask them if they can recall the origianl source.

Anyway I decided to also flesh out the history of the canon. Looking at all the diatesaron, and rabbula history. In the event that should come up.....