Peshitta Forum

Full Version: GP vs AP
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I've been in some conversations with a few Greek scholars who of course believe that the Greek text was the 1st NT text. I'll post something one of them said, and hope to have some comment on it.

James E Snapp Jr. said:

"let?s return to the subject of those Aramaic phrases that pop up sporadically in the Gospels as words spoken by Jesus: it?s easy to see why a Syriac translator, unless very meticulous, would omit them if he was using a Greek exemplar in the course of creating a Syriac translation: they would be superfluous.

But, consider how things would stand from the opposite direction: why would a Greek translator add them if he was using a Syriac exemplar in the course of creating a Greek translation? After all, he would be translating *every* word.

So why for only these words would he interrupt the narrative to supply a parenthetical note explaining the meaning of the word?

A specific example: in Mark 7:34, in the Greek text, ?He said to him, ?Ephphatha,? that is, ?Be opened.?? Whereas the Peshitta, in Mark 7:34, says, ?He said to him, ?Be opened,? with no explanatory note.

Why would any Greek translator of a Syriac text that read, ?He said to him, ?Be opened,?? treat his exemplar in this way?

.
Here is the other person's comments, on the same subject of the clarifying statements or "internal translations" found in the GNT and ANT.

Steven Avery said:

"The only issue I have seen that I consider probative is the internal translations. There is no good vector of creation (remember most of them are not in the Peshitta) other than an original Greek or Latin text. This is not to say that the artificial creation is "impossible" but unlikely to the point of absurdity, like evolution. Probability approaching 0."

.
Shlama Akhi

They aren't really absurd at all. What they call "internal translations" likely started out as textual glosses. Glosses often start out at the margin of a text, and make their way into the main body after subsequent copies. We see this type of thing all the time.

In modern English versions we call them footnotes. Or they are placed in paranthesis.

Other times, a passage that could read multiple ways is often clarified, with a "that is..."

These people really don't have any substantial evidence of grammatical mistakes from the Greek into the Aramaic, do they? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

+Shamasha
Quote:These people really don't have any substantial evidence of grammatical mistakes from the Greek into the Aramaic, do they? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

So far....it is mere assumption and speculative plausibility.
Quote:So far....it is mere assumption and speculative plausibility.

Well, let's talk about what we know, shall we?

1. The Gospels, Acts, Epistles and the Revelation were written by Aramaic speakers from Israel, Turkey, and Syria during the 1st century AD.

2. Jesus spoke Aramaic on a daily basis.

3. Most Christians in the 1st century church were Jews and Assyrians.

4. Many textual variants and difficult passages in the Greek New Testament can be explained through polysemy and mistranslations (caused by misreading) from the Aramaic Peshitta.

5. Jews took Aramaic with them wherever they went (as evidenced by Aramaic inscriptions being found in Europe, and more specifically, Rome). A careful reading of the Epistles will show that Jewish people were present in the congregations.

6. Paul usually went to the Jews and then preached the Gentiles, including Greeks, Romans, and Aramaeans.

7. Paul not only traveled to Greece and Rome, but also frequently traveled to Syria.

8. Ancient testimony from the historian Josephus tells us that few Palestinian Jews could speak Greek fluently.

9. Ancient testimony tells us that many of the many of the New Testament Books were written in Aramaic. According to church tradition, Matthew and Hebrews were written in "Hebrew" (as in Judean Aramaic). Jerome says that Paul was a Hebrew and wrote in "Hebrew".

10. James wrote to the twelve tribes of Israel that were scattered in the Diaspora, therefore making it more likely that the Epistle bearing his name was written in Aramaic.

11. Since Peter was sent to preach the Gospel to the Jews, it is logical to assume that he wrote the two Petrine Epistles to Jews.

12. Mark was a close friend to Peter and based his Gospel on his teachings, therefore it is logical to assume that Mark was written in Aramaic.

13. Luke was a Syrian from Antioch, therefore it makes it more likely that he wrote his Gospel and Acts in Aramaic.

14. JS Assemane mentions someone else seeing a manuscript of the four Gospels written in Aramaic from 78 AD.

15. The Peshitta contains poetry and puns that are completely lost in the Greek New Testament.

16. The Peshitta reads smoothly, unlike most translations read. In contrast, the Greek New Testament does not read smoothly and has a very Semitic flavor (much like the Septuagint).

17. The Gospel of John is believed to have been written in Ephesus, which had a strong Jewish population. Again, this makes it more likely that the Gospel was written in Aramaic.
Nice list, Dylan...though most of this is also assumption and speculation, but, if the GPs can use these type of logical deductions on their end, so can the APs. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

But, the AP does not only have to rely on this type of thing to show an Aramaic original NT.

Quote:9. Ancient testimony tells us that many of the many of the New Testament Books were written in Aramaic. According to church tradition, Matthew and Hebrews were written in "Hebrew" (as in Judean Aramaic). Jerome says that Paul was a Hebrew and wrote in "Hebrew".

Dylan can you provide the statement made by Jerome, which says that Paul wrote in Hebrew?

Quote:11. Since Peter was sent to preach the Gospel to the Jews, it is logical to assume that he wrote the two Petrine Epistles to Jews.

The 1st letter of Peter, clearly states that he was writing to those who were "scattered" or sown into the nations of Asia minor, which sounds to me that these were not native to the lands where they were living. Potted plants...Jewish Christians living in the diaspora, outside of the Land.

Quote:14. JS Assemane claims to have seen a manuscript of the four Gospels written in Aramaic from 78 AD.

I think that Assemane mentions that it was seen by another, not himself, but he makes mention of what the witness described seeing...if I'm not mistaken. We need to check this out and make that clarification if so.
Thirdwoe Wrote:Dylan can you provide the statement made by Jerome, which says that Paul wrote in Hebrew?

He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were
eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.? ? Jerome (4th Cent.); Lives of Illustrious
Men, Book V

The thing about Greek Primacy is that the scholars who believe in it begin with the belief of Greek primacy without seriously examining our arguments. I would say that the variances being explained by reading one Aramaic word multiple ways is the best evidence that we have, and it is, for obvious reasons, very important. I was reading on Wikipedia that Paul's Greek was impeccable, but I've never heard anyone else say that. I know Luke's Greek grammar was good, but not as good as Josephus.