Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Aramaic Primacy Questions
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I'm not trying to spark a debate but trying to see the responses to these questions.

1. Many Jewish tombs in Israel have been discovered with Greek writing, notably the tomb of Caiaphas. How does this fit into the idea that few Jews in Israel had great knowledge of Greek?


2. Where does the Talmud speak of a time of mourning when the Septuagint was completed? Where is more proof that it wasn't used much in Israel? Andrew Gabriel Roth quotes a Peshitta primacist scholar speaking of the time of mourning in his appendix in the "Survey of Peshitta Primacist Scholarship".

3. Is there any citation for the supposedly rabbinical quote that says, "It is better to feed your children the meat of swine than to teach them Greek,"? Lamsa and Bauscher have both used this quote in their introductions.

4. Could more proof be given as to the Aramaic primacy of Paul's letters to European churches?

5. Could the Galileans have had a great knowledge of Greek than the Judeans? Ancient Nazareth was very close to Greek speaking villages, I believe.

6. Is there more proof that Luke was a Semitic Gentile as opposed to being a Greek?

7. Scholars claim that the New Testament does not bear the marks of a translation. What say you to this?

8. Do you believe the Apostle Paul was a fluent Greek speaker or at least a good Greek speaker? The Book of Acts seems to show that Paul spoke Greek quite well. I believe Tarsus had a great number of Greek speakers in it as well. Paul also spoke Aramaic and very likely Hebrew.

9. What is your opinion of the idea that Jesus preached and debated in Hebrew?

10. Were the Targums more popular than the Septuagint among the Israeli Jews?
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I'm not trying to spark a debate but trying to see the responses to these questions.

1. Many Jewish tombs in Israel have been discovered with Greek writing, notably the tomb of Caiaphas. How does this fit into the idea that few Jews in Israel had great knowledge of Greek?


2. Where does the Talmud speak of a time of mourning when the Septuagint was completed? Where is more proof that it wasn't used much in Israel? Andrew Gabriel Roth quotes a Peshitta primacist scholar speaking of the time of mourning in his appendix in the "Survey of Peshitta Primacist Scholarship".

3. Is there any citation for the supposedly rabbinical quote that says, "It is better to feed your children the meat of swine than to teach them Greek,"? Lamsa and Bauscher have both used this quote in their introductions.

4. Could more proof be given as to the Aramaic primacy of Paul's letters to European churches?

5. Could the Galileans have had a great knowledge of Greek than the Judeans? Ancient Nazareth was very close to Greek speaking villages, I believe.

6. Is there more proof that Luke was a Semitic Gentile as opposed to being a Greek?

7. Scholars claim that the New Testament does not bear the marks of a translation. What say you to this?

8. Do you believe the Apostle Paul was a fluent Greek speaker or at least a good Greek speaker? The Book of Acts seems to show that Paul spoke Greek quite well. I believe Tarsus had a great number of Greek speakers in it as well. Paul also spoke Aramaic and very likely Hebrew.

9. What is your opinion of the idea that Jesus preached and debated in Hebrew?

10. Were the Targums more popular than the Septuagint among the Israeli Jews?


Shlama akhi,


great questions! i'd like to speak to just a few at this late hour:

1. A tomb with Greek inscriptions doesn't necessitate the resident knew the language all that well. it could have been a mark of "status" to show his affiliation/proximity to the ruling class, ie, the Romans, who largely spoke Greek. additionally, Greek was known to a degree, just not the most common tongue. also, keep in mind that the priestly class lived in far closer relation to the Greek ruling class than the general populace, which prompted nods to the Romans in all manner of unseemly details.

4. what kind of proof do you want? i've got scores of evidences i've compiled from personally translating and comparing the Aramaic to the Greek, displaying word-plays galore and instances where the Greek texts got the Aramaic terms confused, etc.. pm me if you're really interested and i can send you a sampling to chew on.

7. Have they compared it closely to the Aramaic text of the Peshitta with the central idea of looking for which ones bear marks of a source-document, or have they just compared with the already-in-place 'Greek is original' perspective? this matters quite a bit.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
I don't really see how they can determine if it has marks of a translation. The main reason why I lean towards Aramaic primacy is because of the split readings and such.
Quote:4. Could more proof be given as to the Aramaic primacy of Paul's letters to European churches?

Hi Akhi,

In what language was Paul spoken to by our risen Lord, while on the road to Damascus? In Greek ?

In what language did Paul tell the Galatians (4:6-7) that the Spirit in them calls out to the Father ? And how about the Romans in 8:15 ?

How did Paul end his first epistle to the Corinthians? With a Greek phrase, or an Aramaic phrase ?

So here you have Paul writing Aramaic words and phrases to Rome, Corinth and Galatia. The question is, was it only those isolated words, or were the epistles in their entirety in Aramaic? I think the textual evidence supports the latter.

+Shamasha
Thanks for your responses! Can anyone respond to all of the questions?
Quote:1. Many Jewish tombs in Israel have been discovered with Greek writing, notably the tomb of Caiaphas. How does this fit into the idea that few Jews in Israel had great knowledge of Greek?

I think logic can help here.

1. I believe that Greek was used to be understood universally.
Looks like Jews understood Greek at least a little bit too.
Other tombs were discovered with threats and curses against robbery,
therefore there was need to
warn other people too.

2. If Jews completely did not understand Greek, there were not
inscriptions only in Greek.

3. When we look on inscription over the crucified Jesus in Hebrew
then this means
that Jews were not good in Greek if was used their language or
not all were good in Greek.
Shlama ScorpioSniper,

i can answer some others:

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:2. Where does the Talmud speak of a time of mourning when the Septuagint was completed? Where is more proof that it wasn't used much in Israel? Andrew Gabriel Roth quotes a Peshitta primacist scholar speaking of the time of mourning in his appendix in the "Survey of Peshitta Primacist Scholarship".

this reference is found in the Talmud's minor tractate Soferim, 1.6,7 which basically states what languages it is forbidden to translate it in, and even what scripts were forbidden:

It is not permissible in old Hebrew, in Aramaic, in Medean or in Greek. No language or script shall be read from unless it is written in Assyrian. It occurred once that five elders wrote the Greek Bible for King Ptolemy, and that day was as hard for Israel as the day on which the calf was formed. For it is impossible for the Torah to be translated exactly.

so it wasn't that Greek was detested, but that the value of the pure text of the Law was seen and desired to be protected from loss in translation or misunderstanding. as one who reads Hebrew and Aramaic, i can tell you that while the general sense of the Word is translatable, there is ALWAYS something lost. that is why you will read on here from anyone who knows Hebrew or Aramaic that you will be best-off if you learn the original languages of the Word and let the Spirit speak to you without the biased lens of a translator. i translate Hebrew and Aramaic myself, and so i know that even trying not to be biased, there is always some degree that is going to rub off; in like manner, the rabbins likely wished to keep people away from misapplying the Word and also from diminishing the content. any reading of the LXX compared to the Hebrew will see the diminishing, and the same goes for the Greek NT vs. the Peshitta.

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:3. Is there any citation for the supposedly rabbinical quote that says, "It is better to feed your children the meat of swine than to teach them Greek,"? Lamsa and Bauscher have both used this quote in their introductions.

i've been a part of the Hebrew-Roots movement for many years, and while this is something i've always heard, i've never seen a documented source for it. if there is one, someone else will have to help you here. otherwise, i'd label it suspect.

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:5. Could the Galileans have had a great knowledge of Greek than the Judeans? Ancient Nazareth was very close to Greek speaking villages, I believe.

i think it would have been quite certain for this to have been the case due to the situational details.

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:10. Were the Targums more popular than the Septuagint among the Israeli Jews?

i know that targum Onqelos was considered inspired, so i would think it highly popular, especially so since it was in Aramaic, and Jewish people could understand it easier than Greek.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I don't really see how they can determine if it has marks of a translation. The main reason why I lean towards Aramaic primacy is because of the split readings and such.


Shlama akhi,


this reason is a wise one. you're a step ahead of Greek scholars! split-readings, mistranslations, word-plays, poetry, Janus Parallels, omitted/included passages, absence of "explanations" except for key terms, etc, are what one should look for to determine marks of originality.

for example, the Hebrew text of Scripture is riddled with word-plays, poetic devices, Janus Parallels, and such, and all these are lost in the LXX. it is VERY difficult to maintain a word-play in a new translation. it is somewhat easier to maintain poetic structures from Hebrew to Greek, however, since it is largely parallelistic in nature. however, the very curious Janus Parallels are basically impossible to translate. even when the Hebrew was translated into Aramaic for the Tanakh, some of these JPs still could not survive intact. then, of course, there is the possibility for mistranslation, which we see from time to time in the LXX.

these kinds of things are important, because the LXX gives us a standard to test the NT Greek on, when we compare it to the Peshitta's Aramaic text. if the Greek NT were to be original, it should show similar marks of originality, like the Hebrew Scriptures do. after all, the same AUTHOR is at work, right? but we don't see these similar marks, except in some rare instances of obvious Semitic parallel poetry.

so that is how a sane person can ascertain whether or not the Greek is original, or the Aramaic is original, of the NT. it isn't really hard, it is just time-consuming. i've been working since 2009 to document everything that i see by comparing Greek and Aramaic, and all the myriads of variants found in the Greek. Alaha willing, one day the work will be done and shared with all.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Quote:It is not permissible in old Hebrew, in Aramaic, in Medean or in Greek. No language or script shall be read from unless it is written in Assyrian.

<in Assyrian>, what that would mean? Modern Hebrew squared letters?
Just curious why they did not allow old Hebrew. Looks like therefore it was gone from Jewish scriptures.
IPOstapyuk Wrote:
Quote:It is not permissible in old Hebrew, in Aramaic, in Medean or in Greek. No language or script shall be read from unless it is written in Assyrian.

<in Assyrian>, what that would mean? Modern Hebrew squared letters?
Just curious why they did not allow old Hebrew. Looks like therefore it was gone from Jewish scriptures.

Because the Samaritans preserved the old Hebrew script, and the Jews after returning from captivity in Babylon/Assyria wanted to differentiate their version of the scriptures from the Samaritan, which they considered to be altered.

+Shamasha
IPOstapyuk Wrote:
Quote:It is not permissible in old Hebrew, in Aramaic, in Medean or in Greek. No language or script shall be read from unless it is written in Assyrian.

<in Assyrian>, what that would mean? Modern Hebrew squared letters?
Just curious why they did not allow old Hebrew. Looks like therefore it was gone from Jewish scriptures.


Shlama,


in addition to what akhi Paul wrote, yes, the script called Ktav Ashurit in the Hebrew is what we know as "square letters."


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
ScorpioSnyper,

About your comments that the New Testament Greek does NOT bear the marks of translation may not be due to word plays; puns or polysemy examples. IOW, the general view of Philology should play a role here. By that I mean how structure of sentance flows; how good or how smooth is the Greek in connecting phrases. Let me just say this: (this is just my opinion) ; let us take the example of the book of Hebrews. (I know alot gets said against the idea when one mentions scholars and how the scholars how almost universally [about 96 or 97%] have sided with Greek primacy; but there is something to be taken into consideration when the epistle of Hebrews is known to be of the highest form of Greek of all the New Testament letters. The author of Hebrews knew his Greek very well and to say that it bears the mark of translation, well, if you say that than he had to be a very exceptional translator indeed. There is almost 0% consenses that the epistle of Hebrews bears mark of a translation from what I read. But like I said, members on this forum sort of are get on the defensive when you mention scholarship agreement here and I can understand why. But when the agreement of scholars is over 95% something needs to be taken into account here, that is all. And I guess I am piggybacking on some of the work of scholars here, I admit this. I do not know Aramaic and I know very little Greek although I can read the Greek words. But the natural flow and rich expressiveness of the book of Hebrews [and this is to the Hebrews, now] in the Greek language bears the mark of originality. all I am saying is this has to be considered and put on the table. And this is not to mention the old Testament quotes of the author of Hebrews. Mike
Quote:It is not permissible in old Hebrew, in Aramaic, in Medean or in Greek. No language or script shall be read from unless it is written in Assyrian.
What is difference here between Aramaic and Assyrian?
:

Do we have any reasons why we would think that a Hebrew Apostle would write and send out a Greek language letter to a Hebrew speaking Church? Do we believe that the Hebrew Church spoke Greek as their primary language?

Clement of Alexandria in about 190 A.D. explains the contrast in language and style, from that of the Apostle Paul's other letters, by saying that the Epistle to the Hebrews was indeed written originally in the Hebrew's language, but was then translated by Luke into Greek.

Shlama,
Chuck
IPOstapyuk Wrote:
Quote:It is not permissible in old Hebrew, in Aramaic, in Medean or in Greek. No language or script shall be read from unless it is written in Assyrian.
What is difference here between Aramaic and Assyrian?

A very specific script originally used in Hatra, Assyria. The basis of Ktav Ashuri (the square script used by Jews since the captivity.)

+Shamasha
Pages: 1 2