Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Aramaic Primacy in the East
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Shlama Akhi Dylan,

I thought you might like to know the opinion of the current Patriarch of the Church of the East, HH Mar Dinkha IV.

In the following video, he instructs us in how to pronounce the Lord's Prayer in what he says is the language our Lord said it in, the "literary tongue" (Leshana Sapraya). He then continues afterward to translate into modern Neo-Aramaic. And then concludes by saying that it is important that we learn to recite it in the Lord's language.

http://youtu.be/jbbRJ6dMaC4

+Shamasha
Akhi Chuck,

I've issued the challenge to Greek primacists for over a decade now, that they provide an example of a mistake in the Aramaic NT that can be traced to an error when translating from the alleged Greek originals. I've only been met with the sound of crickets.

There should be at least one, one would think. Every other translation from the Greek has plenty of examples, and hence subsequent revisions.

+Shamasha
Thanks for the video Paul!

Do you believe that there was one translation of the Peshitta into Greek? It would certainly be interesting if they found an "Old Greek" New Testament! <!-- sConfusedhocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhocked: -->

I was reading that the Alexandrian has rougher Greek, Byzantine smoother, and that the Western text-type is fond of paraphrasing. I can't read Greek (or Aramaic sadly), so I can't see exactly how different the exact words are in the various text types.
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Thanks for the video Paul!

Do you believe that there was one translation of the Peshitta into Greek? It would certainly be interesting if they found an "Old Greek" New Testament! <!-- sConfusedhocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhocked: -->

I was reading that the Alexandrian has rougher Greek, Byzantine smoother, and that the Western text-type is fond of paraphrasing. I can't read Greek (or Aramaic sadly), so I can't see exactly how different the exact words are in the various text types.

Hi Akhi

I believe the most likely scenario is that there were multiple translations, especially of the Epistles that were originally written in Aramaic.

The church in Ephesus would have translated their epistle independently of the church of Corinth and that of Rome, who would have translated their own epistles. It would have been done very early on, for the benefit of the non-Jewish members of those early communities.

At some point, they were collated into the collections we have today with the 3-4 main textual traditions of the Greek. There is no single version or textual tradition, there never was. Otherwise you wouldn't have all these families of texts. That is a sign of translation.

+Shamasha
Hello everyone-

Since there is a "Problem" in the origin of the "Pericope Adulterae", maybe I can squeeze in something that may prove interesting about the early verses:

John 7: 53 through John 8: 2 (Moffatt):

"So every one of them went home, but Jesus went to the Hill of Olives. Early in the morning he returned to the temple, the people all came to him, and he sat down and taught them."

I have some ideas concerning the rest of the Story, though I'm not as confident on those sets of Symbols as usual. I can map out a set of Symbols for this, however:

Josephus, _Wars..._, 2, 1, 3:

"...these were followed by Archelaus's heralds, who commanded every one to retire to their own homes, whither they all went, and left the festival."

This is Type again, mapping the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE. Mark's Typology is all over this one. The order to Massacre the 3000 is given late at night ("Watch, I tell you...") and when the order is given
there is at least one Very Important Person caught outside with no hope of surviving. He does "miraculously" survive, making his way into the Temple and the people did come to him. Did he teach
them or heal them?:

Mark 6: 53 - 56 (Moffatt):

"On crossing over, they came to land at Gennesaret and moored to the shore. And when they disembarked, the people at once recognized Jesus; they hurried round all the district and proceeded to carry the sick on their pallets, wherever they heard that he was, whatever village or town or hamlet he went to, they would lay their invalids in the marketplace, begging him to let them touch even the tassel of his robe - and all who touched him were healed."

"...touch the tassel of his robe..." is what the "Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood" wants to do. If she but touches it, she will healed. The Stories above are manifestly different, though not different in TYPE. The question is whether the author of this John material was writing with intention concerning a link with what is found in Mark. I think so. That leads to the question already asked: "How did this get in here? Who decided this?"

By way of example, another verse not found in many early places is Luke 22: 43 - 44. If you go to the RSV, there is no set of verses 43 - 44.
I don't know why this should be although I am coming around to the position that there were some early "Church Fathers" who knew a lot more about the cards being played than they were letting on...
Any ideas are welcome.

CW
Quote:By way of example, another verse not found in many early places is Luke 22: 43 - 44. If you go to the RSV, there is no set of verses 43 - 44. I don't know why this should be although I am coming around to the position that there were some early "Church Fathers" who knew a lot more about the cards being played than they were letting on...

Justin Martyr is among the earliest "Church Fathers" Charles, and he shows us that the verse was indeed part of the text, and this just about 50 years before the last Apostle is said to have finished his earthly course.

"For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, ?If it be possible, let this cup pass:?" Justin Martyr: Dialogue With Trypho (about 150 A.D.)

The statement is also in the Peshitta text, which goes back to the Apostles...and if it is in there, and in Justin Martyr's copy of the NT, and in Tatian's Diatessaron from 160 A.D....that's good enough for me. Why the RSV editors chose to omit it, is the question, it's part of the Holy Scriptures, and all other major English translations from the Greek text has the verses present.

A side note: I was looking at David Bauscher's translation of these verses...and he makes a mistake by adding the word "he" which is not present in the text that he translates from, which makes Jesus falling on the ground, and not His drops of sweat, like blood, which fell on the ground.

.
Thank you, Thirdwoe!

CW

[[Edit: I was entirely too cryptic on one point and it goes back to a point made earlier, esp. by Konway87. Josephus is "Suspect" to some here. I use Josephus quite a lot. Eusebius is a trusted source to many. Eusebius is "Suspect" to me. I need to study Irenaeus, especially after a quote that came up on another site. And so on...

As to Thirdwoe's comments, I agree that the "...sweat dripping like blood..." was probably in the original:

Mark 12: 4 - 7 (RSV):

[4] Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully.
[5] And he sent another, and him they killed; and so with many others, some they beat and some they killed.
[6] He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, `They will respect my son.'
[7] But those tenants said to one another, `This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.'

"...they wounded him in the head..."

Again, Mark is being reflected in Type. The entire Story in Mark 12 is interesting for this. All of the Brutal Acts committed against the Faithful are focused and repeated on the "...beloved son".
This gives support to the Lukan passage.

Thanx]]
Shamasha Paul,

I think I found a serious person now that wants to look at some verses that he say would show proof of the Peshitta text being a translation. He has provided a list of verses. Here is what he gave.

He said:

"I'll have to get back with you on this to answer the question in detail, but off the top of my head, I seem to recall a Syriac variant which confused stoas (porches) with stoles (robes) -- which is understandable via a misunderstanding of a Greek exemplar in which the letters A and L were miswritten, but not so understandable in the Syriac-->Greek direction."

Then later he said:

"Some time ago I went through the trouble of making a fresh Word document out of Michaelis' introduction to the Peshitta, combined with supplemental materials on the same subject. Michaelis mentioned a number of passages which, on my first impression, appear to meet the challenge that you mentioned.

Here are some of them: Acts 10:3. Philippians 1:1. I Tim. 3:1. Mt. 27:65. I Cor. 7:2, 7:6, and 7:7. Mt. 28:1. Acts 2:30. Mt. 27:36. Acts 2:42.

The reason why each of these verses poses a problem for the theory of Syriac (or Aramaic) Primacy varies from case to case, and the strength of the reasoning might vary as well. Nevertheless there's a list, for consideration; for additional information see the whole introduction."

He then provided this detailed article which deals with these verses and others, here below. I haven't yet looked it over, but plan to...I thought you and others might want to see it as well.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fdownload%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D1436565806559945%26time%3D1386657482%26metadata&access_token=512413917%3AAVL-BDEHLEyEa1tFYLgPkotxDin8qv3RWmOwpRhuVUK8OA&title=Michaelis+Intro+to+Peshitta+Dec+2013.doc">https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordVie ... c+2013.doc</a><!-- m -->


.
In the Facebook group New Testament Textual Criticism, I saw a thread started by Charley Ellis. This August, one of the administrators removed me from that group for starting a similar thread there, so I can see Ellis's thread, but cannot post there. In the OP, Ellis quoted something from Paul Younan that was a response to one of Ellis's posts on Peshitta.org. I searched in this forum for some keywords, "the sound of crickets," and the only result was one of Younan's posts on this thread.

I am trying to connect with Charley Ellis on Facebook, but the message I sent him there went to his Other folder. I would have to pay 1$ to send a message to his Facebook Inbox. I hope Charley Ellis and I can connect here. I guess he goes by Chuck/Thirdwoe here. Is that right? Here is a link to my Facebook timeline: https://www.facebook.com/keith.sena.1

Baylor University in Waco, Texas accepted me. I will major in Religion with a concentration in Biblical & Related Languages. Since the Honors Program also accepted me, I will write a senior thesis; I might write it on NT Aramaic primacy.
Thirdwoe Wrote:Shamasha Paul,

I think I found a serious person now that wants to look at some verses that he say would show proof of the Peshitta text being a translation. He has provided a list of verses. Here is what he gave.

Thanks Akhi, I'll look over his examples, although they appear to be no his, but stuff he's accumulated from very old sources. Just perusing some of them, though - it does not appear to meet the criteria. It looks like someone was reading a manuscript and said "mistake, because the Greek reads this way" .... instead of what I'm looking for, which is more like "The Aramaic reads this way because they misread A for B, and the two are similar enough in the Greek for the mistake to be easily made".

He hinted that he "thought" he read somewhere about the porch/robe example, that's the type of mistake I'm looking for.

But, I will for the sake of thoroughness look through this collection he's made of other peoples manuscript observation.

+Shamasha
I'm here Casdmo, looking forward to talking with you. I'll be back online later this afternoon to talk.

Peace,
Chuck
Quote:He hinted that he "thought" he read somewhere about the porch/robe example, that's the type of mistake I'm looking for.

Shamasha Paul, He now seems to think it was in the Sinaitic Palimpsest, or "old scratch"...and I told him, if so, that wouldn't do. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

That article he supplied, is from that famous German scholar, I quoted, who said such good things about the Peshitta. Same person.

Shlama,
Chuck
Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote:He hinted that he "thought" he read somewhere about the porch/robe example, that's the type of mistake I'm looking for.

Shamasha Paul, He now seems to think it was in the Sinaitic Palimpsest, or "old scratch"...and I told him, if so, that wouldn't do. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

That article he supplied, is from that famous German scholar, I quoted, who said such good things about the Peshitta. Same person.

Shlama,
Chuck

Sounds like a great read.

Yes, I didn't think he would be able to find anything related to the Peshitta being a translation.

When I read an Aramaic document, I have a knack for telling if it was originally composed in that language or if it was a translation from another language.

The translations are odd. I can't explain it except to say they don't flow right. They are rigid. The word order is often foreign and not Semitic.

The Aramaic of the Peshitta is so perfect, in style, that it is *the* exemplar of that style and time. It is the main primary source in every grammar.

That's saying something.

And for no one, ever, to have pointed out a mistake - say, from confusing two words in Greek or a mistranslation, is amazing. It can't be the worlds only, ever, perfect translation. It can't be a translation.

+Shamasha
I'm reading through Acts again and I find it shocking how many times Syria is mentioned.

The word "Syria" appears five times: Acts 15:23, 15:41, 18:18, 20:3, 21:3
The word "Antioch" appears fifteen times: Acts 11:19, 11:20, 11:22, 11:26 (twice), 12:25, 13:1, 13:14, 14:21, 14:26, 15:22, 15:23, 15:30, 15:35, 18:22
The word "Damascus" appears thirteen times: Acts 9:2, 9:3, 9:8, 9:10, 9:19, 9:22, 9:27, 22:5, 22:6, 22:10, 22:11, 26:12, 26:20

I'm not sure how many more towns in Syria are recorded as being visited by the apostles in the Book of Acts. It looks like Paul probably went to Syria about as much as he did to Greece. Not all of these record an apostle going to these cities, but it is surprising how much they are mentioned.
Their patriarchs chose wives from there, not Greece. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Deuteronomy 26:1-10 Wrote:Once you enter the land that God, your God, is giving you as an inheritance and take it over and settle down, you are to take some of all the firstfruits of what you grow in the land that God, your God, is giving you, put them in a basket and go to the place God, your God, sets apart for you to worship him. At that time, go to the priest who is there and say, ?I announce to God, your God, today that I have entered the land that God promised our ancestors that he?d give to us.? The priest will take the basket from you and place it on the Altar of God, your God. And there in the Presence of God, your God, you will recite:

A wandering Aramean was my father,
he went down to Egypt and sojourned there,
he and just a handful of his brothers at first, but soon
they became a great nation, mighty and many.

Why wouldn't Paul (and all the other Apostles) have brought the message of salvation back to the homeland ?

+Shamasha
Pages: 1 2 3 4