Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Aramaic diaspora in Greek speaking countries?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
So, what we have?

Looking at textual analysis of NT it looks like written in Aramaic and translated into Greek. In Greek speaking countries?
This is the idea that Greek primacists keep to and it looks logical.

What about Aramaic diaspora in Greek speaking countries?
Acts 16:1 - And he came to the city Derbe, and to Lystra. And there was a certain disciple there, whose name was Timothy, the son of a believing Jewess, but his father was an Aramaya.
(Modern Turkey).
Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Aramaya, neither...
Not bad evidence at the beginning.

In the whole NT there is no proof that Paul was Greek speaking or at least fluent.
When he arrived into a new city, he usually went to Jews first. On the other side he spoke Aramaic and it is clear.

--------------------------
Lets look what is happening in the modern world.
Diaspora in the USA(Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Lithuanians, Armenians, Belorussians, Moldavans etc.) from former Soviet Union where common language was Russian. They (we) live culturally and linguistically separated from Americans. The diaspora speaks different languages of their own but are united by Russian language.
They have own stores, shops, businesses, fairs, churches, schools, markets etc.
People coming from the former Soviet like social activists, singers (also secular ones) etc. - all is orientated at the diaspora. There is very little interactions with American public. Our lawyers work almost with only our diaspora.
Now, old people barely speak English. Younger generations are fluent in English but not so good in the languages of their parents except for mainly domestic and necessary things. But the younger generations stick almost only to the diaspora also.
----------------------
Now, if the Aramaic diaspora was in Greek speaking countries then the translations from the Aramaic scriptures into Greek were (looks to me) done by the younger generations of the Arameans not by Zorba.
-------------
I believe that we have to look deeper into this picture.
Concerning names. The above mentioned diaspora carry names of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin origin. Now, the babies born in USA in big numbers carry American names.
So, at the NT times the Greek names does not mean that the people were Greeks by origin.
Tavarish

You are so right on this! I know many russians too and you can, indeed, speak about communities.
They are often kept fresh, because of satelity television, so the children will learn RUssian too.
In old days, when school was not a common privilige, I can imagine that people in a diaspora , were much more isolated and just copied the language of their parents.
Religion will add to that, because of social relations to people in the same community and the liturgy must be a cause to remind to the original language.

They, in Turkey, were separate groups even until 1915, where Syrian and Kurdic and Armenian people lived in South Turkey and they all had they own language.
distazo wrote
Quote:They, in Turkey, were separate groups even until 1915, where Syrian and Kurdic and Armenian people lived in South Turkey and they all had they own language.
So, if missionary is a Kurd then logically in Turkey he would go to first to his own people to teach.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/Aramaic-Toponyms-in-Turkey---A-Demand-of-the-Aramaean-Diaspora/168121">http://www.afroarticles.com/article-das ... ora/168121</a><!-- m -->
"Mr. Minister, you may or may not be aware of the ancient history of our people in Turkey. Aramaic inscriptions as well as external evidence, such as Biblical and Assyrian sources, testify to the omnipresence of Semitic Aramean principalities (not to be confused with Indo-European Armenians) in southeastern Anatolia from the late second millennium BC onwards."
"In his book on the early history of Tur ?Abdin, Dr. Andrew Palmer observed about this area:

"Not only are several of the village names still in use, even these types of farming and the same skill in metalwork are characteristic of the ancient Aramaic stock of Christians who are the hereditary inhabitants of the plateau.""
IPOstapyuk Wrote:In the whole NT there is no proof that Paul was Greek speaking or at least fluent.
When he arrived into a new city, he usually went to Jews first. On the other side he spoke Aramaic and it is clear.

.

Even in Acts there is no indication Paul spoke greek,


21:37 As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, ?May I say something to you??
?Do you speak Greek?? he replied. 38 ?Aren?t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago??

39 Paul answered, ?I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.?

40 After receiving the commander?s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic[a]:

Arkady

judge Wrote:Even in Acts there is no indication Paul spoke greek

C'mon, judge. Paul did not speak Greek?! The Apostle of the Gentiles did not speak one of the most wide spread languages of those times?! Look what he says of himself:

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1st Corinthians 15:18)

Does not this serve as an implication that he spoke the languages of the people to whom he was led by the Holy Spirit to preach to them the good news of the heavenly kingdom? Do you take a gift of tongues for some kind of a joke?

Arkady. Russia.
Arkady Wrote:
judge Wrote:Even in Acts there is no indication Paul spoke greek

C'mon, judge. Paul did not speak Greek?! The Apostle of the Gentiles did not speak one of the most wide spread languages of those times?!

I suspect he did. I just noted that after the Roman asked Paul if he spoke greek he went and addressed the crowd in Aramaic , thats all.

Quote:Look what he says of himself:

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1st Corinthians 15:18)

Does not this serve as an implication that he spoke the languages of the people to whom he was led by the Holy Spirit to preach to them the good news of the heavenly kingdom? Do you take a gift of tongues for some kind of a joke?

Arkady. Russia.

No I accept that the gift of tongues occurs. I dont claim to understand it. I dont have strong opinions about it.
Shlama Khulkon:
I hope you don't mind if I wade in here with you. Paul spoke more languages than most, if not all of the disciples of Yeshua. There is no scripture passage in the New Testament where it explicitly states that Paul did not speak other languages. We do have much evidence, including the 22 books of the Aramaic Peshitta that Paul dictated his letters to ready scribes, who could write with a keen scribal handwriting of K'tav Ashuri. This is the Alphabetical text that would have been written till the transcriptions in Estrangelo came from Edessa. Moreover, Paul wrote with his own hand, in various places in large letters (text) if we are to interpret the plain reading.
Paul most certainly preached in Greek, but his letters were all written in Aramaic, as Marya perfected the gift of languages in Paul. The gift of languages/tongues was crucial for the preaching of the Gospel to peoples of various languages just as at the Day of Pentecost. I think we are greatly influenced by the "Pentecostal teaching" as it is interpreted today, by Greek and Latin based Western Churches. I am not speaking disrespectfully against Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches, for they are disciples of Christ, just as I am. I spent three decades in the Charismatic movement with the same beliefs which were taught to me by godly men and women. At this time having grown some, I can wrap my head around more truth and think outside of the box without falling into various types of heretical teachings and to stand virtually alone amidst those that think contrary to me, while agreeing to disagree with many questionable denominational teachings. I hope that I'm not off topic, for it all comes to bear on the topic of the importance of "preaching the Gospel to "all the nations" of the west as well as the east. The gift of languages/tongues was for preaching, interpretation of various languages, all by which the WORD of Alaha rang true for the purpose of the salvation of the world. The Rukha d'kadusha engineered language and passed it over the tongues of the Apostles and disciples alike and thereby they fed the Body of Mashikha with the truth. What a joy and wonder it was indeed to receive the engrafted word which is able to save the souls of humanity.

Shlama,
Stephen

Arkady

Stephen Silver Wrote:Shlama Khulkon:
I hope you don't mind if I wade in here with you. Paul spoke more languages than most, if not all of the disciples of Yeshua. There is no scripture passage in the New Testament where it explicitly states that Paul did not speak other languages. We do have much evidence, including the 22 books of the Aramaic Peshitta that Paul dictated his letters to ready scribes, who could write with a keen scribal handwriting of K'tav Ashuri. This is the Alphabetical text that would have been written till the transcriptions in Estrangelo came from Edessa. Moreover, Paul wrote with his own hand, in various places in large letters (text) if we are to interpret the plain reading.
Paul most certainly preached in Greek, but his letters were all written in Aramaic, as Marya perfected the gift of languages in Paul. The gift of languages/tongues was crucial for the preaching of the Gospel to peoples of various languages just as at the Day of Pentecost. I think we are greatly influenced by the "Pentecostal teaching" as it is interpreted today, by Greek and Latin based Western Churches. I am not speaking disrespectfully against Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches, for they are disciples of Christ, just as I am. I spent three decades in the Charismatic movement with the same beliefs which were taught to me by godly men and women. At this time having grown some, I can wrap my head around more truth and think outside of the box without falling into various types of heretical teachings and to stand virtually alone amidst those that think contrary to me, while agreeing to disagree with many questionable denominational teachings. I hope that I'm not off topic, for it all comes to bear on the topic of the importance of "preaching the Gospel to "all the nations" of the west as well as the east. The gift of languages/tongues was for preaching, interpretation of various languages, all by which the WORD of Alaha rang true for the purpose of the salvation of the world. The Rukha d'kadusha engineered language and passed it over the tongues of the Apostles and disciples alike and thereby they fed the Body of Mashikha with the truth. What a joy and wonder it was indeed to receive the engrafted word which is able to save the souls of humanity.

Shlama,
Stephen

agreed, Stephen.
Arkady wrote
Quote:C'mon, judge. Paul did not speak Greek?! The Apostle of the Gentiles did not speak one of the most wide spread languages of those times?! Look what he says of himself:

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1st Corinthians 15:18)

Two different topics are messed up: rukhanaya and napshanaya whereas they are completely different.

1. At the Pentecost (Acts) they spoke tongues as the Spirit made them to. To Corinthians Paul says who has gift of tongues, pray to get gift of interpretation of the tongues and when I pray in tongue, my spirit prays but mind is without fruit and the spirit speaks mysteries. It is between God and the spirit.
Only those who are baptized in the Spirit and experienced the spirituality can understand it completely whereas others produce different by-standing theories.

Concerning what Stephen mentioned about charismatic churches, so I was among them for a while.
I observed that they speak in tongues not being filled with the Spirit so I do not know what they are doing and it simply is scary for me what they do.

2. Natural learning of a language is learning by brain and the spirit has nothing to do here.
There is no proof in the Scriptures that Paul spoke or was fluent in Greek. You may take a phrase book, learn few expressions and go to China but not forget to take your friend-interpreter with yourself.

Arkady

IPOstapyuk Wrote:Arkady wrote
Quote:C'mon, judge. Paul did not speak Greek?! The Apostle of the Gentiles did not speak one of the most wide spread languages of those times?! Look what he says of himself:

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1st Corinthians 15:18)

Two different topics are messed up: rukhanaya and napshanaya whereas they are completely different.

1. At the Pentecost (Acts) they spoke tongues as the Spirit made them to. To Corinthians Paul says who has gift of tongues, pray to get gift of interpretation of the tongues and when I pray in tongue, my spirit prays but mind is without fruit and the spirit speaks mysteries. It is between God and the spirit.
Only those who are baptized in the Spirit and experienced the spirituality can understand it completely whereas others produce different by-standing theories.

Concerning what Stephen mentioned about charismatic churches, so I was among them for a while.
I observed that they speak in tongues not being filled with the Spirit so I do not know what they are doing and it simply is scary for me what they do.

2. Natural learning of a language is learning by brain and the spirit has nothing to do here.
There is no proof in the Scriptures that Paul spoke or was fluent in Greek. You may take a phrase book, learn few expressions and go to China but not forget to take your friend-interpreter with yourself.

A couple of things.

Russian Saint Dmitriy of Rostov (17th-18th cen) thinks otherwise (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitry_of_Rostov">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitry_of_Rostov</a><!-- m -->).

In his book "Lives of Saints" on May, 10:
From the excerpt from "To the memory of the Apostle Simon Zealot" (Google translation with my corrections):

Quote:When the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles in the form of the fiery tongues on the day of Pentecost, they have received the gift of tongues, so that they could preach the gospel to all nations, and Simon, along with the other eleven apostles worthy to receive the Holy Spirit. Having received the Holy Spirit, he went to preach about Christ on the cross-country, went though Egypt, Mauritania, Libya, Numidia, Cyrene and Abkhazia. He has also been in Britain. Here he has enlightened by the faith in Christ many of the Gentiles, not knowing Christ, for which cause he was crucified by infidels and ended his life in the suffering for Christ's sake.

Plus, you, guy, may altogether want to familiarize yourselves with 'Homily 35 on First Corinthians' by St. John Chrysostom
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220135.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220135.htm</a><!-- m -->

Quote:1 Corinthians 14:3 'But he that prophesies speaks unto men edification, and exhortation, and comfort.'

At this point he makes a comparison between the gifts, and lowers that of the tongues, showing it to be neither altogether useless, nor very profitable by itself. For in fact they were greatly puffed up on account of this, because the gift was considered to be a great one. And it was thought great because the Apostles received it first, and with so great display; it was not however therefore to be esteemed above all the others. Wherefore then did the Apostles receive it before the rest? Because they were to go abroad every where. And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak various languages. See accordingly how he both depresses and elevates it. Thus, by saying, He that speaks with tongues, speaks not unto men, but unto God, for no man understands, he depressed it, implying that the profit of it was not great; but by adding, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries he again elevated it, that it might not seem to be superfluous and useless and given in vain.

But he that prophesies speaks unto men edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

Do you see by what he signifies the choice nature of this gift? I.e., by the common benefit? And how every where he gives the higher honor to that which tends to the profit of the many? For do not the former speak unto men also? Tell me. But not so much edification, and exhortation, and comfort. So that the being powered by the Spirit is common to both, as well to him that prophesies, as to him that speaks with tongues; but in this, the one (he, I mean, who prophesies) has the advantage in that he is also profitable unto the hearers. For they who with tongues were not understood by them that had not the gift.

What then? Did they edify no man? Yes, says he, themselves alone: wherefore also he adds...

The Teaching of the Apostles
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0854.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0854.htm</a><!-- m -->

Quote:And, while Simon Cephas was saying these things to his fellow apostles, and putting them in remembrance, a mysterious voice was heard by them, and a sweet odour, which was strange to the world, breathed upon them; and tongues of fire, between the voice and the odour, came down from heaven towards them, and alighted and sat on every one of them; and, according to the tongue which every one of them had severally received, so did he prepare himself to go to the country in which that tongue was spoken and heard.

Moreover, it is different from profesying:

"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe." (1 Corinthians 14:22)

"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (:39)

It is profitable to the instruction of those who speak in this tongue:

"Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" (:6)

Oneself is edified:

"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." (:4)

It also serves somehow to the edification of the Church:

"So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (:9)

"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." (:26-27)

Probably it was of little use if a person who had received this gift abode still in the community of his brethren who spoke the same language (and therefore it required the gift of interpretation).

It is likewise evident that they were puffed up by this gift so Paul had to restrain them.

Quote:1 Corinthians 12:10 'To another working of miracles; to another prophecies; to another discernings of spirits; to another various kind of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues.'

Thus, since they boasted themselves in this, therefore he placed it last, and added

Homilies on First Corinthians (Chrysostom)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220129.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220129.htm</a><!-- m -->

Paul spoke Greek:

Letters of St. Jerome > Letter 27
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001027.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001027.htm</a><!-- m -->

Quote:3. But when I set the wheel rolling I began to form a wine flagon; how comes it that a waterpot is the result? Lest Horace laugh at me I come back to my two-legged asses, and din into their ears, not the music of the lute, but the blare of the trumpet. They may say if they will, rejoicing in hope; serving the time, but we will say rejoicing in hope; serving the Lord. They may see fit to receive an accusation against a presbyter unconditionally; but we will say in the words of Scripture, Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all. 1 Timothy 5:19-20 They may choose to read, It is a man's saying, and worthy of all acceptation; we are content to err with the Greeks, that is to say with the apostle himself, who spoke Greek. Our version, therefore, is, it is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation. 1 Timothy 1:15 Lastly, let them take as much pleasure as they please in their Gallican geldings; we will be satisfied with the simple ass of Zechariah, loosed from its halter and made ready for the Saviour's service, which received the Lord on its back, and so fulfilled Isaiah's prediction: Blessed is he that sows beside all waters, where the ox and the ass tread under foot.

Even more, I am a firm believer that no one does possess a gift of tongues nowadays.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." (:8)

They are just poor and possessed people, I feel sorry for them. It has long ago not been given to anyone (since, say, 150 AD) but I am sure again we will see it in work in some 15-20 years from now.
Arkady wrote
Quote:Even more, I am a firm believer that no one does possess a gift of tongues nowadays.

You will have what you believe. No wonder.

Those who have nowdays the spiritual gifts, they know what they got from God.
Those who not received the gifts, they remain bystanders and engaged into
never ending deliberations and different kinds of theoretical speculations that leads
to the destruction of their listeners.

Spiritual things must be understand spiritually.
'Napshanaya' man cannot understand 'rukhanaya' one since it must be
considered by 'rukhanaya' way as it is said in 1 Corinthians.

Arkady

IPOstapyuk Wrote:Spiritual things must be understand spiritually.

Let not the Satana rejoice over the disagreement between us.