Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Peshitta STILL superior
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Peshitta STILL superior


Had some thoughts this morning while getting ready for uni. These things hapen at the oddest times... Actually I started thinking on this ages ago, but just realised the implications while grilling my cheese. Life's funny like that.

1) Even if the Greek NT is the original and the Aramaic NT is a translation, what is the most important part of the whole Bible? Would you dare say it isn't the very words of Jesus? Now, what language did He speak? Aramaic. So even IF the GNT is the original, the most important bits are still only translations (which as we have seen with our many Peshitta proofs, results in many problems with the Greek NT).

Now with the Aramaic Peshitta, we often see that Jesus' words are filled with poetry, idiom etc. Are Greek primacists impressed? No, because Jesus spoke Aramaic anywahy. But what does this imply? That the Peshitta contains the original words of Jesus, whether it is the original NT or a translation of the Greek NT! Whether or not the Peshitta NT is the original, in the most important sections, the words of Jesus, it is superior to the Greek NT, whether or not the Greek is the original.

2) From this of course, you can branch off, with more ideas that scream "Peshitta primacy". What would happen if you wrote some poetry in English, translated it into Swahili, then had an expert translate that into English, without the help of the source text? Would it retain its poetry and even idiom? Unlikely. So why does the Aramaic Peshitta NT preserve the poetry and idiom of Jesus' teachings? Does it make use of a source text that has the original sayings of Jesus? If so, this makes the Peshitta superior to the Greek which is filled with translations of Jesus' words. What is this source? Could the Peshitta be its own source? The original? Either way, Peshitta primacists can take comfort in the fact that even if the Peshitta is in the main part, a translation from the Greek NT, it is still superior due to having the original words, in the original language of the central figure in Christianity, Jesus.

As a sidenote, what applied here to Jesus can also be applied to other Aramaic-speaking New Testament figures such as Peter and Stephen. Keep applying the above principles to all those in the NT who spoke Aramaic (i.e. all, Aramaic being the common language of the Semitic peoples) and you may even garner the "crazy" notion that all of the NT was originally penned in the language of the Messiah and His people.
Shlama Chris,

I agree.
The idea of an text inspired in a language not spoken by the subjects of the story nor understood by its audience is ludicrous and unprecedented, considering the OT example.
Strictly speaking, if such were to occur, the recorded "inspired" text would not contain one word our Lord actually spoke, unless you count the handful of transliterated statements and words in Greek as original words.
Pretty sad account of an "Divinely inspired" text !

,[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nym0[/font]
Dave
Thankyou my brother, until someone in the field I respect as much as yourself would agree I wouldn't have this in the book.
Peshitta STILL superior

How?

Had some thoughts this morning while getting ready for uni. These things hapen at the oddest times... Actually I started thinking on this ages ago, but just realised the implications while grilling my cheese. Life's funny like that.

Where's the steak and onions?

1) Even if the Greek NT is the original and the Aramaic NT is a translation, what is the most important part of the whole Bible? Would you dare say it isn't the very words of Jesus?

Yes.

"Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was the "living text" in the Greek literary tradition, unlike the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was subject to strict controls because (in the oriental tradition) the consonantal text was holy. And the New Testament text continued to be a "living text" as long as it remained a manuscript tradition, even when the Byzantine church molded it to the procrustean bed of the standard and officially prescribed text. Even for later scribes, for example, the parallel passages of the Gospels were so familiar that they would adapt the text of one Gospel to that of another. They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standard of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not been attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves to be filled with the Spirit. As a consequence the text of the early period was many-faceted, and each manuscript had its own peculiar character.Aland & Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, p. 69.."

My thesis: The Peshitta is just a stylistic variation from the NT network. Sure, it has Semitic idioms, poetry, etc, etc lying therein. But this was from work of scribes who moulded the text.

Now, what language did He speak? Aramaic. So even IF the GNT is the original, the most important bits are still only translations (which as we have seen with our many Peshitta proofs, results in many problems with the Greek NT).

So what the P'shitta and the Greek NT differs from each other? Variation exists in all New Testament manuscripts.

"It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, pp. 594-595 (Under "Text, NT")."


Could the Peshitta be its own source? The original? Either way, Peshitta primacists can take comfort in the fact that even if the Peshitta is in the main part, a translation from the Greek NT, it is still superior due to having the original words, in the original language of the central figure in Christianity, Jesus.

Strong assertions there, buddy. You have no written record of Jesus' words. You don't even have the original Peshitta to fall on.

As a sidenote, what applied here to Jesus can also be applied to other Aramaic-speaking New Testament figures such as Peter and Stephen. Keep applying the above principles to all those in the NT who spoke Aramaic (i.e. all, Aramaic being the common language of the Semitic peoples) and you may even garner the "crazy" notion that all of the NT was originally penned in the language of the Messiah and His people.

"For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'.

Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century.Bruce M Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, 1997, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 72-73
How?

Because the Greek can only translate or transliterate what Yehshua actually said. The Aramaic wins in that respect.
byrnesey Wrote:Peshitta STILL superior


As a sidenote, what applied here to Jesus can also be applied to other Aramaic-speaking New Testament figures such as Peter and Stephen. Keep applying the above principles to all those in the NT who spoke Aramaic (i.e. all, Aramaic being the common language of the Semitic peoples) and you may even garner the "crazy" notion that all of the NT was originally penned in the language of the Messiah and His people.


You know last night I did a bit of research on the Catholic web site "New Advent.org" and was looking at enteries involving "Aramaic". To gain a little more info on both primacy and early church stuff. It's really, really interesting too! You know while there is a general overall assumption of Greek primacy, when they want to explain a Greek concept or term. Like the "primacy of Peter", term "apostle" etc. they infact go back to Aramaic. Not just for things in the Gosples, but things in the episltes as well. Infact I think that topic is so interesting that today or tomorrow, I will do a thread here in the general section. Where I will post little gems from that Catholic internet database.
byrnesey Wrote:How?

Because the Greek can only translate or transliterate what Yehshua actually said. The Aramaic wins in that respect.

OK, so the Greek is a translation of the P'shitta. You all have proven that to me. Nevertheless, the P'shitta does not have an apostolic signature. Jesus' sayings were not collected under the supervision of at least two apostles to ensure accuracy. In fact, the earliest surviving Peshitta is 442 (according to sources which may be faulty). Nevertheless, it's a late period.

I do believe that some of Jesus' sayings are in the four canonical Gospels as they agree doctrinallly with the Torah (i.e. Sermon on the Mount).

However, I believe ideas of crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension were later attributed to him by the Church (both West and East) to fit Paul's ideas of Christ. As the Gnostic scribes heavily coated the Gospel of Thomas for their purposes, the Paulist scribes coated the four canonical Gospels----and how would they be stopped when the NT was originally an oral "text?" After all, the early Church had a tendency to "revise" (i.e. Peshitto)

These are only suspicions, folks. I have not cited any authoratative sources to prove my point (this time). However, if I am wrong, prove it.

I particularly call out Akhi Paul to do so.
Shlama,

I've found a nasty little quote for Akhi Paul:

"Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the "original reading but in the "true reading." This is precisely the attitude toward the NT which prevailed from the earliest times to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the invention of printing. The thousands of Greek MSS, MSS of the versions, and quotations of the Church Fathers provide the source for our knowledge of the earliest or original text of the NT and of the history of the transmission of that text before the invention of printing. (George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, p. 595 (Under "Text, NT").)"
bar_khela Wrote:Shlama,

I've found a nasty little quote for Akhi Paul:

"Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the "original reading but in the "true reading." This is precisely the attitude toward the NT which prevailed from the earliest times to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the invention of printing. The thousands of Greek MSS, MSS of the versions, and quotations of the Church Fathers provide the source for our knowledge of the earliest or original text of the NT and of the history of the transmission of that text before the invention of printing. (George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, p. 595 (Under "Text, NT").)"

Yes, indeed. The Greek is a mess.
Paul Younan Wrote:
bar_khela Wrote:Shlama,

I've found a nasty little quote for Akhi Paul:

"Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the "original reading but in the "true reading." This is precisely the attitude toward the NT which prevailed from the earliest times to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the invention of printing. The thousands of Greek MSS, MSS of the versions, and quotations of the Church Fathers provide the source for our knowledge of the earliest or original text of the NT and of the history of the transmission of that text before the invention of printing. (George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, p. 595 (Under "Text, NT").)"

Yes, indeed. The Greek is a mess.

And the source of the Greek is......
bar_khela Wrote:And the source of the Greek is......

....the "pre-mess". <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Yes my Muslim friend, many variants in the Greek are deliberate. That's why not ALL variants are split words and such <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> But it just shows how much more superior the Aramaic is of course. As Paul says, teh Greek is a mess.
Paul Younan Wrote:
bar_khela Wrote:And the source of the Greek is......

....the "pre-mess". <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

How is the Peshitta different from the Greek, other than being nearly letter-perfect in regards to agreement with other copies?