Peshitta Forum
Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language???? - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language???? (/showthread.php?tid=1005)



Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language???? - byrnesey - 08-28-2004

This is a planned addition to the Misc section of the book:


23. Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language???? ??? 2Timothy 3:16 / Acts 17:10-11

One often hears claims that the New Testament must have been written in Greek because Greek was the ???lingua franca??? of the time. Much evidence in this book and in many other sources show this claim to be much exaggerated, as Greek was in many places somewhat of an ???elitist language???. This is a fact accepted by many Greek primacist scholars today, such as the renowned Dr. Matthew Black, in his book, ???An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts???, which despite the name, promotes Greek primacy:

???Four languages were to be found in first-century Palestine: Greek was the speech of the educated ???hellenized??? classes... Aramaic was the language of the people of the land and, together with Hebrew, provided the chief literary medium of the Palestinian Jew of the first century??? ??? Dr. Matthew Black

There are many other cases where we see that Greek was an elitist language such as in Acts 21:37 where the commander seemed very surprised that Paul could speak Greek, as he thought that Paul was just an uneducated Egyptian terrorist.

However!

Even if it were true that Greek was spoken more often than not in the Biblical lands, there is no basis to assume that it must have been the language of the New Testament.

What I just said may sound odd, but the proof lies in the Bible itself:

2Timothy 3:16
All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness;

Acts 17:10-11
Then the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night to the city of Berea; and when they arrived there, they entered into the synagogue of the Jews. For the Jews there were more liberal than the Jews who were in Thessalonica, in that they gladly heard the word daily and searched the scriptures to find out if these things were so.

Of course these references must refer to the Old Testament (OT), because the NT Scriptures were not yet completed. What language was the OT written in? Hebrew. Not Aramaic, not Greek, not Ancient Egyptian, but Hebrew. Was Hebrew ever the lingua franca of the world or, say, the Middle East? No. Now if we were given the Hebrew Scriptures for our benefit, when most of us cannot speak or read Hebrew, why is it seen as improbable that Aramaic-speakers were given an Aramaic original, even though the rest of the world spoke other languages? Why should we assume that the New Testament had to have been written in a ???global language???, when the Old Testament was not? That???s the problem with Greek primacy. It is based on assumption, not fact.

Furthermore, how many people today speak Hebrew, compared to those who speak English, or even German, French, Hindu and Chinese? Very few. Yet Christians are still to use the OT Scriptures. Basically, we have the situation that the Old Testament was written originally in a language that most people at the time, and in the present time, could/can not speak, yet Christians are still to make use of these Scriptures.

So even if Greek was the lingua franca in Yeshua???s day, is it such a stretch of the imagination that the New Testament, like the Old, would be written in a language that was (supposedly) not as wide-spread?

---

Regards,

Chris


- Dave - 08-28-2004

Quote:So even if Greek was the lingua franca in Yeshua???s day, is it such a stretch of the imagination that the New Testament, like the Old, would be written in a language that was (supposedly) not as wide-spread?

Heh, you seen what I was looking at didn't you Chris?

Was you there when GOD was working this plan of HIS to break from the old? No. Neither was anyone else of this day and age. How do you know that GOD didn't have the apostles translate this in greek for the very purpose of breaking from the hebrew and aramaic? Just how much did the jews anger GOD in their denial of Jesus as the messiah? To the point that they would never be keepers of the words of GOD anymore? GOD has always established the second and done away with the old, do you think that this language would be no exception?

Most people would agree that there is a semetic version behind the greek, those who were not biased either way. But, the problem is, do we accept that semetic version was the scriptures handed down as they were in the standardized peshitta? I couldn't agree with that because it has no western text influence. The peshitta looks condensed and standardized. Western text dominated the first couple of centuries. If GOD was utilizing the aramaic text, then why hasn't many texts of the original western version survived in aramaic? Why has GOD allowed this language to die off so much? Here's a rough one for a few here, why has GOD allowed the eastern churches to wither away so much if they were the torchbearers of the NT?

Look at this, if the greek is a copy from the aramaic, then where is the semetic version of the greek that the old syriac was copied from? Or the original from where the Liege manuscript was produced from? These are copies from the greek, which were copies of some semetic form. You mean that all these are just forgeries? Bezae, Washintonius, etc.? The western text that fills the quotes of all the church fathers of the 1st and 2nd century was a forgery?

yea, ok, I believe that,.....not.

What about the missing sections that make up the King James version that GOD witnesses to everyday? GOD saves souls at a rate of thousands a day with the King James bible yet it is a corruption huh? Have you told GOD this yet? Why don't you tell him Chris.


- Dave - 08-28-2004

you know, this is an interesting subject.

Why didn't GOD promote the aramaic scriptures instead of the greek? Was it just the times and places or did HE have another purpose? Why does GOD witness to the greek scriptures and not the aramaic, meaning why has this not made the inroads into the church if it was truley important?

Hmmmm, this is interesting.

With as much technology nowadays, and all the discoveries and learned men, GOD has still not moved from the greek scriptures. Is it just a bias? Is it scholarly concenses? Or is it something more that The Holy Spirit has a purpose in?

When Lamsa's bible was produced, it did not take the church by storm, obviousely GOD did not promote it. HE didn't use it, it just died off.

Hmmmm. Is this a purpose of GOD?

Will anything that is promoted from the aramaic die off like Lamsa's and Murdocks?

Not to anger people on here, but I never looked at this before.


- byrnesey - 08-28-2004

Paul how long will you allow this agent of Satan to reside here? Look at how he insults Eastern Christianity by virtually claiming that God didn't allow them to survive as they didn't hold to the "original Bible". This froma fool who cannot even spell Semitic.

I can not believe that such things are allowed on a forum that is meant to a) be scholarly and b) promote the Peshitta.

Yet I was the one who was banned, while Satan's self-righteous brother is allowed to stay, all the while attacking Peshitta-believers, and blaspheming about anything and everything.

It is time to take action once again Paul. Only this time, for crying out loud, don't turn on those who love you. All I wanted is to come back and find and share proofs, not to argue - how long will I, and others have to put up with such nonsense?

Regards,

Chris


- Dave - 08-28-2004

Quote:Paul how long will you allow this agent of Satan to reside here? Look at how he insults Eastern Christianity by virtually claiming that God didn't allow them to survive as they didn't hold to the "original Bible". This froma fool who cannot even spell Semitic.

I can not believe that such things are allowed on a forum that is meant to a) be scholarly and b) promote the Peshitta.

Yet I was the one who was banned, while Satan's self-righteous brother is allowed to stay, all the while attacking Peshitta-believers, and blaspheming about anything and everything.

It is time to take action once again Paul. Only this time, for crying out loud, don't turn on those who love you. All I wanted is to come back and find and share proofs, not to argue - how long will I, and others have to put up with such nonsense?

Regards,

Chris


now now, namecalling will get you in trouble on here little man.


- Dave - 08-28-2004

I'll relate something to you Chris, that GOD has been showing me for about the last 8 years:

Is the age of the prophet dead? Would GOD raise up a prophet to write scripture again?

Interesting huh?

HE is GOD, GOD changes not, HE is allowed to do what HE pleases, so would HE do this? Think of the implications.

Let's look at the current situation. All scripture has been through the effects of time, mankind, and satan. In many respects, if there was a need to replace the current books of scripture with new ones, now is the time.

Would GOD do this? I think the question should be when.

Not just the OT mind you, all of it. From all the missing books that were from the fragments that were scattered at Qumran, to scrolls that were burned. Everything that was written in the NT also. Could you imagine it? Everything that was taken or lost at one point by mankind!

How would HE do this? What type of person would he use for such a thing?

I think the person would have to be completely unbiased, first off. GOD could never use a person that was biased towards any sort of language in this. The person would have to be brought through a lot of trials to wear out any sort of incompliance that GOD would find unsuitable for this particular job, that would take a while, but it took Moses 40 years.

How is a matter of the heart. Only a person that was after GOD's heart in this would be able to do this sort of important work. He would have to allow GOD to have HIS way in this, completely. This person would probably have no wife or kids that would distract from what GOD wanted, ect. Pretty much a totally independant person.

What language would GOD use if HE was going to do this?

Ahhhh, now this is where it becomes really, really interesting. Would GOD use a language of old, or something new? What would be more relevant? Would an old language be more appropriate or would that hinder the growth and spread of the work? Would a new language be more suitable or fail to be taken serious by HIS people?

Serious questions huh?

Is it dangerous? It would destroy the prestige that some people feel they have at the moment because when GOD creates something new HE destroys the old. So yea, it could be dangerous to them and their livelyhood.

Chris, I find this interesting. GOD has neat things that HE shows HIS people at times, at least to those who are asking. HE has stuff that bewilders the mind, that we are unable to comprehend at the moment.

But anyways, yea, I find this very interesting.


Leviticus 19:16-18 - Stephen Silver - 09-05-2011

Dave Wrote:
Quote:Paul how long will you allow this agent of Satan to reside here? Look at how he insults Eastern Christianity by virtually claiming that God didn't allow them to survive as they didn't hold to the "original Bible". This froma fool who cannot even spell Semitic.

I can not believe that such things are allowed on a forum that is meant to a) be scholarly and b) promote the Peshitta.

Yet I was the one who was banned, while Satan's self-righteous brother is allowed to stay, all the while attacking Peshitta-believers, and blaspheming about anything and everything.

It is time to take action once again Paul. Only this time, for crying out loud, don't turn on those who love you. All I wanted is to come back and find and share proofs, not to argue - how long will I, and others have to put up with such nonsense?

Regards,

Chris


now now, namecalling will get you in trouble on here little man.

Shlama Brethren:
Both of you are name-calling. One calls the other "agent of satan", then the so-called "agent of satan" calls the other "little man". These are taunting words not gracious words. As moderator, it's my job to nip this in the bud, before it spreads.

There is a wealth of knowledge both here and on Dukhrana Biblical Research (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->), please feel free to use the resources which are made freely available to all of us. Didn't Yeshua confirm the written words of Moses? (Leviticus 19:16-18)

Love in Mashikha,
Stephen Silver
(Moderator)


Re: Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language?? - Thirdwoe - 09-07-2011

That conversation was 7 years ago Stephen.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> But I guess late is better than never.

Blessings.


Re: Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language?? - Stephen Silver - 09-08-2011

Thirdwoe Wrote:That conversation was 7 years ago Stephen.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> But I guess late is better than never.

Blessings.

Shlama:
Thanks for the correction. <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->

I guess I lost track of the date.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
(the slow moderator)


Re: Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language?? - Thirdwoe - 09-09-2011

By the way...I have fallen in love with <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m --> (not romantically) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Will you have other Peshitta Manuscripts up someday to compare, like you have the 2 already? Like the Mingana and the Younan Codex perhaps...and the Ambrosianus for the OT???

Mr. Bauscher has told me that he is half way done in rough draft of the OT from the Ambrosianus text. And Mr. Roth might be working on one as well.

Blessings


Re: Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language?? - Stephen Silver - 09-10-2011

Thirdwoe Wrote:By the way...I have fallen in love with <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m --> (not romantically) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Will you have other Peshitta Manuscripts up someday to compare, like you have the 2 already? Like the Mingana and the Younan Codex perhaps...and the Ambrosianus for the OT???

Mr. Bauscher has told me that he is half way done in rough draft of the OT from the Ambrosianus text. And Mr. Roth might be working on one as well.

Blessings

Shlama Akhi:
Unfortunately both the Younan (displayed at the Holyland Museum in Orlando Florida) and the Mingana Codex (at the Manchester Library in England) are copyrighted and are not available for display on the internet. The best I can recommend is that you download each page of the Mingana Codex and study it at your own leasure. There are virtualy no significant variants between the Mingana Codex, Khabouris Codex and the short section of the Younan transcription at Dukhrana which I transcribed. So, personally I see no gain in any modern translaton. Murdock ad Ethridge trump all modern translations that I have seen and read.
Translation of the Peshitta New Testament continues to trouble translators. There is no way of accurately bridging the gap between semitic grammer, idioms and poetry and English, or for that matter any non-semitic language. It is for this reason that it is paramount to work with Aramaic and Hebrew, and get a working knowledge. Mine is small, but I have been richly rewarded for my diligence. Dukhrana Biblical Research and Peshitta.org are the best tools on the internet for study and discovery.
Having said this, there is no greater thrill, in my personal opinion, than finding the original treasures in Aramaic and Hebrew, both of which predate Greek. Remember, Abraham's mother tongue was Aramaic and he had to earn Canaanite (paleo-Hebrew). Isaac and Jacob both spoke Aramaic and Hebrew fluently.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver


Re: Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language?? - Thirdwoe - 09-10-2011

Does Etheridge and Murdoch, translate from an Eastern Peshitta text? or the Western Peshitto text?

And is the 1905 considered a western text? vs the Khabouris, which is an Eastern text?

I have noticed a few variants in these two texts recently.

Blessings


Re: Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language?? - Stephen Silver - 09-10-2011

Thirdwoe Wrote:Does Etheridge and Murdoch, translate from an Eastern Peshitta text? or the Western Peshitto text?

And is the 1905 considered a western text? vs the Khabouris, which is an Eastern text?

I have noticed a few variants in these two texts recently.

Blessings

Shlama:
First it's paramount to understand the significant differences between the Eastern Peshitta and the Western Peshitto.

1) (John 7:53-8:11) Pericope adulterae. (Western Peshitto only)

2a) (Hebrews 2:9) s'tar min Alaha, apart from Alaha. (Eastern Peshita)
2b) (Hebrews 2:9 b'taybuta Alaha, by the grace of Alaha. (Western Peshitta)

There are subtle differences in grammar and scribal errors. In fact, I tend to believe that these variances are evenly distributed in both the Eastern Peshitta and the Western Peshitto.

The Western Peshitto includes II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation, for a full compliment of 27 books, while the Eastern Peshitta contains 22 original Aramaic books, including one book each for James, Peter and John.

As for the source texts of Murdock and Etheridge, they appear to be the Western Peshitto. Both authors have made marginal notes concerning the significant differences such as John 7:53-8:11) (pericope adulterae) and Hebrews 2:9.

I'll get back tto the 1905 later. I noted many of the variants between the 105 and the Khabouris Codex in my transcription, which can be downloaded from Dukhrana Biblical Research at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->

Shlama,
Stephen