Peshitta Forum
Interesting quote - 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: Interesting quote (/showthread.php?tid=1289)



Interesting quote - judge - 05-30-2005

Quote:"I tried, for my own personal use, to see what Mark would yield when translated back into the Hebrew of Qumran. I had imagined that this translation would be difficult because of considerable differences between semitic thought and Greek thought, but I was absolutely dumbfounded to discover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy. Around the middle of April, 1963, after only one day of work , I was convinced that the Greek text of Mark could not have been redacted directly into Greek and that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original Hebrew.



(Jean Carmignac, "Birth of the Synotics", p. 1; the author was a scholar who worked for a decade on the Dead Sea Scrolls)

Presumably this would hold for Aramaic as well?


- Paul Younan - 05-31-2005

As it would for Arabic, Akkadian or Ethiopic for that matter. When doing a redaction like that, Greek is like a square block being forced into a circular hole.

Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Akkadian, Ethiopic, Ugaritic would all be circles of different sizes and would be easier to fit into a circular hole than a square block would.

This weekend I attended my cousin's wedding. He married an Arab Christian girl from Jordan. The service was in the Antiochene Orthodox Church, with the language being in Arabic.

At the end of the service the priest emphatically declared "Qam Messih!" ("Risen has the Messiah!"), which I immediately recognized from it's Aramaic form "Qim-leh Meshikha!"

The Greek of the New Testament manuscripts is a translational Greek. That's why the verbs come first in the sentence, even in Greek where it is a grammatical no-no just as in English.

When you read in the Greek - "rose Christ, and saw him the apostles" - you know it's not an original Greek composition. It's just not.


- oozeaddai - 06-01-2005

[ When you read in the Greek - "rose Christ, and saw him the apostles" - you know it's not an original Greek composition. It's just not.[/quote]


How do you deal with the Koine enthusiast claims. that Koine does infact use bad Greek grammar. That its dialect, word order etc, varies according to the area and people that learn it. (So they would adject their speach patterns to fit whatever their native tongue was)


Koine Greek - nashama - 06-01-2005

oozeaddai Wrote:[ When you read in the Greek - "rose Christ, and saw him the apostles" - you know it's not an original Greek composition. It's just not.


How do you deal with the Koine enthusiast claims. that Koine does infact use bad Greek grammar. That its dialect, word order etc, varies according to the area and people that learn it. (So they would adject their speach patterns to fit whatever their native tongue was)[/quote]

Hi:
Koine "common" Greek is "Interlinear Greek". The Greek New Testament copies are the best available Greek interlinear translations from the Aramaic Peshitta. Koine/common Greek goes so far as to use the grammatical sequences of the Aramaic, even to the point that it contorts Classical Greek. All extant Greek copies of the New Testament do not agree more than 80%, because each Greek redactor/scribe did the best he could and chose Greek words that each felt were the best translation of the Aramaic.
The King James Version of the Bible is not from a single extant manuscript but from about 12 extant Byzantine texts that have been averaged together to create one. It's called the Majority Text for this reason. It's a concensus of the words that are used most frequently when all the Greek manuscripts are superimposed on each other. All those used are Koine/interlinear Greek texts.

Kind Regards, <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->
Stephen Silver


- Dave - 06-02-2005

Quote:Koine "common" Greek is "Interlinear Greek". The Greek New Testament copies are the best available Greek interlinear translations from the Aramaic Peshitta.

I would say from a hebrew original. I wish I could get the filling that I get when I read the greek from the syriac, honestly, but I don't, hence why I think the translation we call the greek was closer to the original.

Really I don't say these things to incite riots with you folks, I can only go on what I experience. Shoot, when I was practicing the letters in hebrew, besides learning to write them, I would say them outloud in sequence to try and memorize them. Just me saying them outloud, just the names of each, GOD was witnessing HIS Spirit in the room with me. It caught me off guard completely. At that moment I realized that this language has an inheritant blessing within it.

I do agree that the greek represents someones attempt to translate from an original, we just disagree on what that original was I guess.


- Paul Younan - 06-02-2005

Dave Wrote:Shoot, when I was practicing the letters in hebrew, besides learning to write them, I would say them outloud in sequence to try and memorize them. Just me saying them outloud, just the names of each, GOD was witnessing HIS Spirit in the room with me. It caught me off guard completely. At that moment I realized that this language has an inheritant blessing within it.

Dave,

You do realize, don't you, that that script is Aramaic and those 22 letters are the same in Hebrew and Aramaic, don't you?

I'm glad GOD was witnessing HIS Spirit in the room with you that day when you were studying an Aramaic script and the 22 Hebrew/Aramaic letters. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->


- Paul Younan - 06-02-2005

oozeaddai Wrote:How do you deal with the Koine enthusiast claims. that Koine does infact use bad Greek grammar. That its dialect, word order etc, varies according to the area and people that learn it. (So they would adject their speach patterns to fit whatever their native tongue was)

I would ask them to give me one example, just one, of a Koine manuscript other than the LXX (a known translation from a Semitic language) and the Greek NT that reads something like:

"rose up Alexander, and saw him the people."

Then, I will be convinced that God would inspire His greatest work in a creole-like language that any minimally educated Greek would be disgusted and frustrated with reading.

The fact is, the Greek NT reads the exact same way as the LXX. And we all know the LXX is a translation.

Just one other work in Koine that uses this "Verb First" Semitic trademark. Then I will be convinced.

There's a huge difference between Koine Greek and Translational Greek. There was indeed a Koine Greek, but nobody I have ever asked has been able to show me one Koine Greek work that reads like the LXX or GNT do.


- Dave - 06-03-2005

Paul Younan Wrote:Dave,

You do realize, don't you, that that script is Aramaic and those 22 letters are the same in Hebrew and Aramaic, don't you?

I'm glad GOD was witnessing HIS Spirit in the room with you that day when you were studying an Aramaic script and the 22 Hebrew/Aramaic letters. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Paul, I haven't got that far with it to know any of the differences yet between the two. I do realize that the Aleph-bet is the same, but I've noticed people make distinctions at times between the two languages in quotes though.

But yea, it threw me for a loop to have that happen. GOD always witnesses to HIS word though. It made me think about the prophets, how Spiritually strong they must have been if the language itself is a blessing, which that was the idea I was getting when that happened.

I'm not sure what is going on with the syriac new testament. I can't get that sort of witness either in the room or from within when I read a translation outloud. I can't understand it unless this was reversed engineered from the greek and it looses a major portion of that Spiritual imprint quality. I don't know what is going on. Every once and while GOD will show me something in it though. HE does witness it to me somewhat, it is just not on a level that I normally receive from the greek.

For me, I'm always looking for GOD to witness something as truth to me by The Spirit. I don't know if everyone does that, but the more I remain reliant upon HIM in this way the better it has been for me.


- Keith - 06-03-2005

Dave,

The meaning of feelings is entirely subjective and oftentimes has nothing to do with the truth. As an Evangelical surely you recognize the absurdity of your argument.

I grew up Mormon and used to "bear my testimony" to the truth and validity of the the LDS faith. None of which was based on the truth, only my feelings about the truth. This is a very poor way indeed of discerning truth. Irrespective of your feelings facts are difficult, though not impossible, to ignore. I would suggest that instead of relying on feelings and merely arguing with Paul why not step back and take a second look at Peshitta Primacy? I'm glad I did.

Kindly,
Keith


- Dave - 06-03-2005

Keith,

I knew I was opening myself up to scrutiny with what I said, but I want to reaffirm that I do not face these things with feelings. I require an answer from GOD in things and I wait and look for that from HIM directly. But I do not want to create this spiritual jealousy in the process, so I'm more apt to not enter in the foray of the primacy issue anymore here. I have my convictions over it already. I'd rather not voice my opinion if I can help it. I do share a few personal experiences over it if that will help explain my position on it some.

I would rather see the work that Paul started finished, as I have been able to see the trustworthiness in it.


- oozeaddai - 06-10-2005

QUOTE
Paul Younan wrote:


Dave,

You do realize, don't you, that that script is Aramaic and those 22 letters are the same in Hebrew and Aramaic, don't you?

I'm glad GOD was witnessing HIS Spirit in the room with you that day when you were studying an Aramaic script and the 22 Hebrew/Aramaic letters.
QUOTE


as a side question. When I took Biblical Hebrew 7 years ago. I think my instructor said, that they "Don't know what the oriignal letter system of the Hebew was". But they suspected that it was possibly like cuniform, before they adopted the assyrian and babylonian alphabet. Because I think that is what the Sumerians were using,a round the time of Abraham.


Do you agree?


- Paul Younan - 06-10-2005

oozeaddai Wrote:as a side question. When I took Biblical Hebrew 7 years ago. I think my instructor said, that they "Don't know what the oriignal letter system of the Hebew was". But they suspected that it was possibly like cuniform, before they adopted the assyrian and babylonian alphabet. Because I think that is what the Sumerians were using,a round the time of Abraham.

Do you agree?

Hi Addai,

The Sumerians long predated Abraham, and were conquered and assimilated by the Semitic-speaking Akkadians (Babylonians & Assyrians) who continued in their use of cuneiform, although adopted for a Semitic speech (Sumerian isn't Semitic, and is unrelated to any other language that's ever existed.)

The Sumerians were the original "Iraqis" (to use the modern name of the area). Sargon the Akkadian conquered them around 2370 BC, and they were finally wiped out by the Amorites (another Semitic group) around 2000 BC. I think Abraham was born in Iraq around 1,800 BC.....couple hundred years after the area became Semitic.

Anyway, these original pre-Hebrew and pre-Arab Semites continued writing in Cuneiform in the Akkadian language, which is strikingly similiar to Hebrew. Akkadian is dead now, it was replaced with Aramaic under the Assyrian empire and continued under the Chaldean and Persian empires to be the official language of the area.

So in essence, what I'm trying to say is that there was no Hebrew before Abraham. There wasn't a Hebrew even during Abraham's lifetime....or even his children's lifetime. The language we know today as "Hebrew" is really Akkadian/Aramaic mixed with Canaanite languages because Abraham went over there and his descendants lived among the Canaanites and Egyptians.

The language we know today as "Arabic" followed a similiar history, Abraham's descendants through Ishmael lived in and around Egypt (his mother's land) and the Arabian peninsula. Arabic is really Akkadian/Aramaic mixed with Egyptian and ancient South Arabian languages.

It's complicated I know, but think of Mesopotamia as England. And think of Israel as America and Arabia as Australia. Like England was the linguistic "hub" of America and Australia, so too was Mesopotamia the linguistic center of the Semitic world. Those who "migrated" to other areas from Mesopotamia took Akkadian~Aramaic with them and it became modified over time.

That's why the three languages are so close to each other. In Abraham's time, Hebrew and Arabic didn't exist because Hebrews and Arabs didn't yet exist.


- Paul Younan - 06-10-2005

oozeaddai Wrote:How do you deal with the Koine enthusiast claims. that Koine does infact use bad Greek grammar. That its dialect, word order etc, varies according to the area and people that learn it. (So they would adject their speach patterns to fit whatever their native tongue was)

Other literary works from the same area and time as the NT include the works of Josephus.

Now, Josephus clearly stated that he wrote his own language (Aramaic) first, then he, himself, at great pains translated them into Greek. He admitted that he was in no way, shape or form proficient in Greek.

Now, why do the Greek translations made by Josephus himself (an Aramaic-speaking-and-writing-Jew) read like good Greek....and totally unlike the Greek of the NT?

Why does Josephus never, ever have "got up to speak Caesar, and beheld him the crowd" in the Greek?

I'll tell you why: nobody translates into bad Greek, otherwise what would be the point of translating it if Greeks would laugh at it and make fun of it? Why would Josephus have done that? If one is going to bother to translate something, they are going to make *damn* sure that it's respectable....right?

Right. So then why would the Greeks, when they translated the Aramaic NT, not have made a similiar effort in rendering the NT into "good Greek."

The simple answer is that they revered the text before them and wished only to give a literal translation, even at the expense of Greek grammar.

Much like the Interlinear on this website reads funny in English, the Greek translators wished to preserve the text they revered in much the same way the translators of the LXX sacrificed good Greek grammar in order to create a translation as literal and as close to the original as humanly possible.

You see that with the Aramaic words that Zorba chose to keep in the Greek, but explain with a gloss. You see that in the choice of verb-subject-object order reflecting that of the underlying Aramaic.

Now, I would challenge those Greek primacists who say that Koine is the reason why to show me one passage, just one, from Josephus that reads the way the GNT does.


- oozeaddai - 06-15-2005

The Josephous example is very helpful. Because it is known for a fact that he was very fluent in Greek. And so the smoothness would be from his proficiency in that language.



I think a good test or argument would be to compare the Greek wriitngs of Josephous to those of the apostle Paul. Because both people are considered part of the educated elite, and often called "Alexandrian Jews" because of their familiarity with Greco culture and language.


While some Greek primacists, say or claim that the twelve apostels used secretaries and translators etc. It usually is assumed that Paul himself literally wrote everything directly into Greek by his own hand. So some of the roughness of the gosples are claimed to come from "dictation". But that shouldnot be the case for the PAuline ones. In this case you really do have a pretty exact analogous situation going. So the argument or the test should hold up well.