Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Randolph O. Yeager
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Shlama Akhay,

In order to really get the attention of the academic world in a profound way, we wouldn't present the weakest Aramaic scholarship we could find and compare it to the weakest Greek scholarship we could find. I said all that to say this.....The best effort I have found so far coming from the Greek camp is an 18-volume set by Randolph O. Yeager entitled The Renaissance New Testament. Despite his pastoral responsibilities and teaching obligations as a university professor, Randy managed to produce this work that took 46 years, mostly at 5 hours a day. I've just received volume 4 in the mail from an eBay purchase. It contains a harmonistic syllabus of Mark 1:1-2:22 / Luke 1:1-5:39 /John 1:1-4:54 and contains 657 pages. I wish it went into great detail concerning the many variants we've discussed here on the forum, but this is where it seems to be scant unfortunately.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.pelicanpub.com/Press_Release.asp?passval=1565546776&title=RENAISSANCE%20NEW%20TESTAMENT%20Full%20Set-%20Vols.%201-18">http://www.pelicanpub.com/Press_Release ... ls.%201-18</a><!-- m -->

The only work I've heard of that analyzes every word of every verse in the Aramaic New Testament is the ongoing project of Terry C. Falla.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.whitley.unimelb.edu.au/Theological/SLP/KPG/">http://www.whitley.unimelb.edu.au/Theological/SLP/KPG/</a><!-- m -->

Also...please read carefully points #1 and #2 of this webpage. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.whitley.unimelb.edu.au/Theological/SLP/about.pxml">http://www.whitley.unimelb.edu.au/Theol ... about.pxml</a><!-- m -->
The only thing that scares me is that this work is in a series where Bruce Metzger is a co-editor. Sheesh! <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- sRolleyes --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="Rolleyes" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- sRolleyes --> <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->

Falla's 'Key' Series will supposedly supersede the work of Henry Whish. If Henry Whish was an adamant Aramaic primacist like William Norton, we might find some interesting tidbits in his book.
Whish, Henry. Clavis Syriaca: A Key to the Ancient Syriac Version Called “Peshito” of the Four Holy Gospels. 1883. 588 pp. A verse-by-verse lexical and grammatical commentary. #1368. $40.
This is taken from this webpage...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://members.aol.com/goodbooks7/Extra-Biblical.htm">http://members.aol.com/goodbooks7/Extra-Biblical.htm</a><!-- m -->

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey
Shlama Akhi Larry,

Quote:In order to really get the attention of the academic world in a profound way, we wouldn't present the weakest Aramaic scholarship we could find and compare it to the weakest Greek scholarship we could find
.

I agree, we wouldn't.

Are we simply comparing scholarship in general, or are we comparing arguments and evidence for Greek primacy and Aramaic primacy ? Does Yeager even address the question ? Very few scholars do.


If Yeager's 18 volumes were filled with evidence for Greek primacy, we might have a problem on our hands. I have little fear of that. He probably has very little knowledge of Aramaic and of The Peshitta, much less of the evidence we have uncovered for Peshitta primacy.

I do believe we need to know Greek fairly well in order to argue credibly with Greek primacists. I do know Greek fairly well, having studied my Greek NT's for thirty years as well as NT Textual Criticism. It has been a serious issue for me , both in university and since graduation and in the ministry.

Even weak arguments for Peshitta primacy are better than no arguments for Greek primacy. Most of what I have heard for Greek primacy is not arguments, just noise.

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

Dave Bauscher
gbausc Wrote:Even weak arguments for Peshitta primacy are better than no arguments for Greek primacy. Most of what I have heard for Greek primacy is not arguments, just noise.

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


Most arguments for Greek primacy I've heard have actually boiled down to these few points.

1) the earliest manuscript evidence is in Greek.

2) superficially speaking the places where the episltes etc. were written have Greek names, which implies Greek was dominant and thus the language of the epistle, or Gospel.

3) Greek primacists are ignorant of the Targums. So they have theorized that it would be unweidy to have translated the scriptures, from Hebrew To Aramaic then into Greek to have made the Greek NT.


4) They claim when faced with Aramaic literary arguments that "Text evidence" shows an Aramaic finger print, when speaking of Aramatizions, offer alterative hypotheses.

a) that their are some dialects of Kione that have similar word order and syntax.

b) the word order resembles something that was read and translated by dictation. (Paul or whoever read the epistle or Gospel to a translator who put it into Greek).


5) They find construction of a hypothetical text, a Q gospel in Aramaic, to be a bogus manipulation and fabrication. A twisting of the text etc. They have jumped on some leap of logic from this web site I have put forth, to show that people here don't really know Greek. They basically when offered a mountain of evidence against Greek, will point out and make a mountain of weak point, or bad conclusion of Greek Grammar to basically filibuster the overall empiricial argument against Greek.


Well these have been the chief objections I have encountered so far, none of them are linguistic except some of point 4. My expereince is that when you confront hard core primacists with proof with comparing greek and aramaic verses. They either ingnore you, or look at it with disbelief, beleiving you are quoting a sloppy Greek translation. Sometimes they are somewhat interested and amused. But not enough to seek out or investigate. At best they admit that yes, Aramaic is a biblical language and has had some influence on the Bible, but they then after making that admission go down a litany of why the Bible really was almost entirely first recorded in Greek. Matthew being the possible only exception.
Here are some objections when I quoted some material from this site. In this series of posts, a contributor here makes the assertion based on the grammar of Mark that the gospel shows a semitic influence based upon various grammarical construction. Whicha re suppose to be more "Semitic" that proper Greek grammar. Here is some rebuttal statements, to that theory.

Blake aka "the Russian" or vs3adguy

QUOTED
I didn't want to get too involved in this subject, because there's a mountain of stuff you've gotta sift through to get really well acquainted with the subject, but there are a few things here in this post that strike me as being very incomplete in its argumentation.
QUOTED

Greek will tolerate putting the adjective after the noun, but again, this shift creates a new form of emphasis.

Not true, there are several adjective-noun positions in Greek with equal emphasis. If I'm not mistaken, Wallace's grammar covers that rather well. For example, (very transliterated) ho anthropos ho agothos = ho agothos anthropos. Both mean, "the good man", no emphasis shift from one to the other.

I wound answer the general argument that some Greek NT passages sound like they're translated from Hebrew in a general sense: could it not simply be because the writers spoke Aramaic and struggled with their Greek? You could certainly tell that I was English if you read anything I write in French. It does not necessarily follow that when I write something in French, I write it in English first and then translate, but my English way of thinking permeates my French oeuvre ??crit. And I think it is entirely the case with some writers, such as John, Mark and the writer of 2 Peter, that their Greek grammar is at times so bad we can only attribute it to someone writing without a fluency in Greek.
QUOTED

Why would Elohim inspire a man to write the New Testament in a language he didn't know well enough to make it sound naturally Greek? And if they were Divinely inspired to write it, then why wouldn't Elohim be able to make it sound naturally Greek despite their human abilities? After all, if it's word-for-word inspired, could not Elohim give them the natural sounding wording to make it pass for something written by a Greek? If the Greek NT is inspired, then why did Elohim make it sound like an unnatural attempt by a Hebrew / Aramaic speaker to use Greek the way he thinks in Hebrew?

This person here confuses mechanical dictation with verbal, plenary inspiration, so it's not really worth much of a response.
from "preaching Jesus"

QUOTED

But both of the first 2 versions put the word in the present tense, when the event being described happened in the past at the time it was written. So both the Greek Orthodox and the Textus Receptus have a problem in that regard. Here, you can tell from the context whether its past tense or future tense but in other cases you cannot.

Let me respond to this point:

1) The historical present usage in koine greek is well attested.
2) Mark's style uses the present a lot in narration.

Therefore, while I conclude that Mark is by no means the best writer of NT Greek, these examples do not necessarily reflect bad grammar.
From Preaching Jesus


"Blake, your my own personal hero for today...[gives the Russian the "My Hero for a Day" medal]

I know I am not planning on wading through this thread too much, primarily because I usually don't reply to cut and pasted stuff (no offense Addai, I still like you and all...)

It might be good to note that the Gospel of Mark is clearly a Greek text first and has no Aramiac roots whatsoever simply from reading the text. The only Aramiac roots the Gospel has would be the language that some of the people during that time and that is not carried through to the Gospel.

I'll need to explain (cause I'm Lucy right now.) It is obvious when one reads the Gospel of Mark that it is being dictated to the writer by Peter. Just look at the Greek structures. These guys (Jesus and His disciples) are erkomai-ing (the Greek word for "to go") everywhere. The Greek itself lends positive light to this argument just by simply reading the text. The sentences and narration are choppy, like dictation is supposed to be. If anyone had translated this from Aramiac, and I don't know why they would have, they would have certainly cleaned up some of the language.

Secondly in the narrative of Mark the actions done are simply put (the 2nd Aorist is used often) and then they move onto something completely different, do it, and move on to something completely different.

Now as for Addai's argument of the Aramiac heritage behind the NT I suggest that it would only be in language spoken by some within stories and the actual transmission of the NT documents is solely in Greek...simply for lack of cogent textual evidences.

I'll leave it alone for now, because I don't want people to think the Russian and I are ganging up on our dear Orthodox brother Addai."
Shlama Addai,

Your opponents are merely parroting info. they have never investigated, as do most Greek primacists. The Greek they have learned is the canned variety dished out in most seminaries and theological institutions.

They also have not studied the history of the first century-
namely Josephus, who apart from the NT itself, is the most prolific and informative historian of the time who actually lived in the 1st century . He was a Jewish priest , Pharisee and Roman citizen. According to Josephus, there were scarcely two other Jews in Palestine who could write and speak fluent Greek. I don't believe the fisherman Peter was one of them.
Josephus himself wrote his works in Aramaic , according to his own testimony. He later translated them into Greek. How else would the people of Israel be able to read them ?
The same logic applies to the NT. It was to "The Jew first, and also to the Gentile."
That means "Aramaic first and then in Greek."
And then there is the internal linguistics argument and data to consider.

Have them take a peek at my link:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dave.ultimasurf.com/">http://dave.ultimasurf.com/</a><!-- m -->

That is a scientific analysis of the words of the Greek editions of Westcott and Hort, The Byzantine NT and The Peshitta NT. It shows conclusively, I think, that those Greek
versions came from The Peshitta Text.

Got to go. More later.

Dave Bauscher
[quote="gbausc"]Shlama Addai,

QUOTE
Your opponents are merely parroting info. they have never investigated, as do most Greek primacists. The Greek they have learned is the canned variety dished out in most seminaries and theological institutions.
QUOTE


Yeah I know and I've presented other evidence earlier from LAmsa who sites the historical stuff like the spread of Arabic through the areas that were previously Aramaic etc.


I just though it would be good to exposed to counter arguments on things like semantics. For example it was said that Mark is not proper Greek based upon word order, as far as where nounds etc. goes and it shows evidence of it coming from Aramaic.


They say that rules concerning word order are not air tight. So which is right? IS this simply projecting pro-Aramaic evidence on the Greek text? Or is it simply a matter of Biblical Greek grammarist "changing the rules" of Greek to accomodate bad translated Greek from an Aramaic original source.


As for me I believed in Aramaic primacy for 10 years when I had friendship and was mentored for a time by a indenpent American bishop that had COE apostolic lines that used the LAmsa Peshitta, and an English translation of "the Liturgy of the Holy Apostles, Mari and Addai". But didn't get my own copy of that work until much later, 2001 I think. For a long time, it really wasn't carried by any bookstore and I didn't know a translation of that text was in wide distribution.
Shlama Akhi Addai,

We've got to highlight quotes here, otherwise it gets too confusing to know who said what:
So and so said:"
Quote:It is obvious when one reads the Gospel of Mark that it is being dictated to the writer by Peter
."

This kind of statement is patently absurd. How could anyone take this guy seriously ? Does he have an original copy of Peter's Greek handwriting or any original document
Peter wrote ? Does Mark use the same vocabulary as 1 Peter in Greek ?

Why does The Greek Matthew and Mark contain transliterated Aramaic phrases with a translation into Greek while the Aramaic texts have no example of transliterated Greek phrases translated into Aramaic ?

Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?Mt 27:46 (WH) peri de thn enathn wran ebohsen o ihsouv fwnh megalh legwn elwi elwi lema sabacyani tout estin yee mou yee mou ina ti me egkatelipev[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]
yntqb$ 0nml ly0 ly0 rm0w 0mr 0lqb 9w$y 09q Ny9$ 9$t yp0lw
[/font]Mt 27:46 (PESHITTA)
Mt 27:46 (MUR) And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice and said: O God, O God; why hast thou forsaken me?
Mr 5:41 And taking the child by the hand, he saith unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise.
Mr 5:41 (WH) kai krathsav thv ceirov tou paidiou legei auth taliya koum o estin meyermhneuomenon to korasion soi legw egeire

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]ymwq 0tyl+ hl rm0w 0tyl+d hdy0b dx0w [/font]Mr 5:41 (PESHITTA)
Mr 5:41 (MUR) And he took the maid???s hand, and said to her: Maiden, arise.

Mr 7:34 and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
Mr 7:34 (WH) kai anableqav eiv ton ouranon estenaxen kai legei autw effaya o estin dianoicyhti
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]xtpt0 hl rm0w xntt0w 0ym$b rxw[/font] Mr 7:34 (PESHITTA)
Mr 7:34 (MUR) and looked towards heaven, and sighed, and said to him: Be opened.

Mr 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mr 15:34 (WH) kai th enath wra ebohsen o ihsouv fwnh megalh elwi elwi lama sabacyani o estin meyermhneuomenon o yeov mou o yeov mou eiv ti egkatelipev me
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]yntqb$ 0nml yhl0 yhl0 hyty0d yntqb$ 0nml ly0 ly0 rm0w 0mr 0lqb 9w$y 09q Ny9$ 9$tbw[/font] Mr 15:34 (PESHITTA)
Mr 15:34 (MUR) And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, and said: Il, Il, lemono shebakthone; that is: My God, my God; why hast thou forsaken me?



And John's Gospel in Greek does the same:

Joh 1:38 And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? And they said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abideth thou?
Joh 1:38 (WH) strafeiv de o ihsouv kai yeasamenov autouv akolouyountav legei autoiv ti zhteite oi de eipan autw rabbi o legetai meyermhneuomenon didaskale pou meneiv
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]tn0 0wh 0ky0 Nbr hl Nyrm0 Nwtn0 Ny9b 0nm Nwhl rm0w hrtb Nyt0d Nwn0 0zxw 9w$y ynpt0w[/font] Joh 1:38 (PESHITTA)
Joh 1:38 (MUR) And Jesus turned, and saw them coming after him, and he said to them: What seek ye? They said to him: Our Rabbi, where stayest thou?

Joh 1:41 He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).Joh 1:41 (WH) euriskei outov prwton ton adelfon ton idion simwna kai legei autw eurhkamen ton messian o estin meyermhneuomenon cristov
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 0xy$ml yhynxk$0 hl rm0w yhwx0 Nw9m$l Mdqwl 0zx 0nh [/font]Joh 1:41 (PESHITTA)
Joh 1:41 (MUR) He first saw Simon his brother, and said to him: We have found the Messiah.

Joh 1:42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Joh 1:42 (WH) hgagen auton prov ton ihsoun embleqav autw o ihsouv eipen su ei simwn o uiov iwannou su klhyhsh khfav o ermhneuetai petrov[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 0p0k 0rqtt tn0 0nwyd-hrb Nw9m$ wh tn0 rm0w 9w$y hb rxw 9w$y twl hyty0w[/font] Joh 1:42 (PESHITTA)
Joh 1:42 (MUR) And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looked upon him, and said Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas.

Joh 9:7 and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went away therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
Joh 9:7 (WH) kai eipen autw upage niqai eiv thn kolumbhyran tou silwam o ermhneuetai apestalmenov aphlyen oun kai eniqato kai hlyen blepwn
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 0zx dk 0t0w gy$a lz0w 0xwly$d 0tydwm9mb gy$0 lz hl rm0w [/font]Joh 9:7 (PESHITTA)
Joh 9:7 (MUR) and said to him: Go, wash in the baptistery of Siloam. And he went, and washed, and came away seeing.

If our Lord and His disciples and most of Israel spoke Greek, we would expect the opposite to what we do find. We should find some Greek phrases transliterated and then translated into the Aramaic in the Aramaic versions.
We do not find this. Thus the internal Greek evidence supports an Aramaic original and the Aramaic versions do not support a Greek original.

I again refer you to my web site
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dave.ultimasurf.com">http://dave.ultimasurf.com</a><!-- m -->
for the article on Greek - Aramaic in The Peshitta and also "The Greek word ermeneuo ..."

Tibotha w'burkhtha,

Dave
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Akhi Addai,


If our Lord and His disciples and most of Israel spoke Greek, we would expect the opposite to what we do find. We should find some Greek phrases transliterated and then translated into the Aramaic in the Aramaic versions.
We do not find this. Thus the internal Greek evidence supports an Aramaic original and the Aramaic versions do not support a Greek original.

I again refer you to my web site
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dave.ultimasurf.com">http://dave.ultimasurf.com</a><!-- m -->
for the article on Greek - Aramaic in The Peshitta and also "The Greek word ermeneuo ..."

Tibotha w'burkhtha,

Dave


Well in my third Aramaic Apologetics thread, the individual did admit or acknowedge that yes he expected that there would be signs of Aramaic language on some of the original sayings, parables, sermons etc. of Jesus found in the Gospels


But his position, that in terms of writing he said the Greek came first. And I have pointed out the linguistics etc. The very fact that there is a Peshitta is something I think that never gets covered. And the fact, that this reveals very nuances like "the rope through the eye of the needle", the rhyming of Jesus various sermons, and various other middle eastern nuances. Is a testimony of its value. And if you study Church history of the entire world, and not jsut the western hemisphere. Then the idea of this becomes even more plausable.


While I hate to use some of the "Political Correctness" buzzwords I heard back in my college days. Some of it really fits here. I think seminaries have had an "western-centric" view of the Church and the scriptures. There is hardly any mention of there being a Persian and Asiatic church. Your lucky if you here one or two sentences of that in any Church History book. And I when I first met that one American bishop who had COE apolstolic lines some of his tales sounded a bit incredible. I wondered why I hadn't heard anything about Aramaic scriptures or an Asiatic Church before. It sounded almost like discovering the dinosaurs or the Lochness monster.


Any I know some Orthodox call their Faith "Americas Best Kept Secret", but when it comes to things like Aramaic Scriptures, and The Church of the East, and even the other Syriac churches, like the Jacobites and Maronites, I think these Syriac Churches are really "The Best Kept secret" of Christianity. The only people up until very recently that have taken them seriously besides their own ethnics really has been a few antiquites professors like Voobus, and Berkit etc. But the weight of opinion for the last few centuries and the lack of early manuscript evidence has made it that even the early Aramaic academics could not escape this western biased mindset.


Any its the mind set, and the huge weight of poorly formed academic opinion thats the obstacle. And well another angle too is that in order to come through to the idea of Aramaic supremacy you do be willing to go through a paradigm shift. And some of that involves study. And quite frankly so many people don't want to devote times to looking at the data is the biggest problem.


I have found however sharing material from LAmsa and from this web site has been popular among the new breed of "post modern evangelicals". And "the Aramaic heritage behind the new testament" has been some of the most wide read discussion threads I've ever done. But you know it's amazing after you do one of those threads, how fast things shift back to Greek primacy assumptions. It seems within just 2-4 weeks. It's almost like if you want this position to continue to be considered you have to constantly push and debate to keep it in the public spot light otherwise it will be quickly forgotten.
Shlama Akhi Addai,

Ignorance dies hard; Old ignorance dies harder; Old institutional ignorance may more likely kill you first !javascript:emoticon('Smile')
Smile

Just keep working on the basic historical and linguistic evidence as well as the cultural education about the Syriac and Eastern churches , peoples, history, etc.. These are truths (The Peshitta primacy and Eastern Christianity) whose time has come for the western world. We are honored to help spearhead the movement .

Blessings,

Dave