Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Split words and Western Lexicons ?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hopefully Paul can answer this one.

Do not Western Syriac Lexicons use Greek meanings in their Aramaic word definitions, since they believe The Peshitta was translated from Greek ?
If so, we would expect Greek variant readings to affect the definition of a particular word since the Lexicographer would consult Greek "sources" for the use of a word.. "Split words", in this case, would be a misnomer, since the Greek usage would be incorporated into the lexicon definitions and then those definitions be used to prove that the Greek came from the Aramaic.

Eastern lexicons should avoid all this, since the Eastern view (COE) would preclude Greek from being considered as a source.
I think only an Eastern lexicon should be used to show split words in the Greek NT.

I hope I am stating this clearly.

Which lexicons are based only on Eastern sources and exclude the Greek ?

Dave B
gbausc Wrote:I think only an Eastern lexicon should be used to show split words in the Greek NT.
Hi, Dave,
Let me put my point of view.
If aramaic westeners believe that NT was translated from Greek, easteners believe that the Aramaic is the original, Greeks believe that the Greek text is original, I as westener believe 80% that 27 books Peshitto is the original with the eastern Peshitta once formed one book. What do these beliefs change??
I do not believe that Eastern lexicon should be used to show the split words!!
Let me put what I believe in. The words during 2000 years were losing some meanings while acquiring another ones. How can we rely on these words even of they are of the eastern Neo-Aramaic lexicon. If we find a split word with two meanings, these meanings must be supported by contextual proofs from the Peshitta text at least 2-3 times. If we rely on meanings of modern words in modern Eastern Neo- Aramaic or some author compiled a dictionary of meanings from his personal poit of view, we are risking and for me, this is not a proof.
Shlama Akhi Dave,

I hope this doesn't come across too crazy-sounding, but the Church of the East just recently (I mean in the last 50 years or so) has been becoming familiar with printed books. The churches before 50 years ago literally were still using hand-scribed texts on animal skins.

In our isolation in the mountains of southeastern Turkey, there were no printing presses or books. The church is just now getting back on its feet from being 80 million people across the entire continent of Asia in the 11th century to a mere quarter million today.

All the "lexicons" we have are still in either museums and unpublished, or within the personal collections of certain families of bishops, etc.

As for dictionaries, etc., the works of bar-Bahlul and Yukhanan bar-Zubi remain the authorititative reference. The only problem is that they are completely in Aramaic. There are some printed Aramaic-Arabic lexicons and dictionaries printed in the middle east, but those won't do an English-speaking audience any good, either.

The only work ever done in English has been the Way International's 15-year effort. And even then, they decided to use the Western Text. This is the basis for George Kiraz's SEDRA database which we use here (except for the Concordance portion, which I created myself.)

As such, it contains many inaccuracies because none of the Way International's team knew how to speak the language and it was based on existing English translations, for the most part, to determine the meanings of Aramaic words.

The most authoritative work, by far, will be the C.A.L. being produced by the Hebrew Union College.
Shlama Paul,

Thank you for that valuable information.
Do you see my point about lexicons using Greek sources for definitions ? Would this not obviate split word conclusions in many places ?

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fkrwbw Fwby+[/font]

Shlama Akhi Dave,

Yes, your point is valid. Lexicons created by westerners who are Greek primacists by nature will resort to Greek definitions. That's the extent to the extant works we have access to at the current time.
shlomo lkoolkhoon,

There's also several dictionaries created in the Middle-East, by the Syriac people themself, such as:

Lubbab (Syriac-Arabic): Created by the Syriac Maronites, and re-produced by the Syriac Orthodox. This Dictionary is huge, and based on Syriac Manuscripts that survived the Library burning of the 10th Century, and on previous Syriac dictionaries that were in Syriac.

Another by Touma Oudo (a Syriac Orthodox): This dictionary is in Syriac only. I've been trying to get my hands on it, but I haven't been able to get it. I do know that the Syriac Orthodox Monastery in Sweden has re-produced it.

The Chaldean Dictionary (Syriac-Arabic): This dictionary is big, and was written by a Chaldean.

And I'm sure there's more, so you can use non-western produced Syriac dictionaries.

poosh bashlomo aHay,