+- 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: Aramaic "autograph" (/showthread.php?tid=1916)
Aramaic "autograph" - Stephen Silver - 11-13-2008
Shlama:
If, as Greek Primacists say, the Greek New Testament was the autograph of the New Testament, why did the Latin Vulgate of Jerome dominate Christendom till the time of the Reformation. Even with the Reformation, no single manuscript of the Greek New Testament was authoritative enough to stand alone.
In very fact, today there is no Greek New Testament manuscript that is deferred to as the New Testament "autograph". The Textus receptus is an "averaged" text based upon 12 Byzantine Greek New Testament manuscripts.
On the other hand, the Peshitta New Testament is not an "averaged text". The Peshitta can easily be demonstrated to be the original "autograph" of the New Testament. The handful of variations between any two eastern Peshitta New Testament manuscripts are without polysemys/split words/synonyms.
The use of synonyms is evidence that any work is a translation. For this reason, the Greek New Testament shows evidence that the various manuscripts are translations from a source text. That source text is the Peshitta New Testament. Moreover the tradition of the CoE is that the Peshitta has been unchanged, and without variation since it was received by the Apostles in the first century. Precisely when in the first century the Peshitta was received in it's 22 book complete form is still speculative, but compared to the traditions surrounding the reception of the Greek New Testament, the care with which the Peshitta has been preserved through great tribulation is nothing short of miraculous.
It's time that Greek Primacists came to their senses in light of the cohesive evidence which points to an Aramaic "autograph" of the New Testament.
Shlama,
Stephen Silver
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Re: Aramaic "autograph" - judge - 11-15-2008
Stephen Silver Wrote:Shlama:
If, as Greek Primacists say, the Greek New Testament was the autograph of the New Testament, why did the Latin Vulgate of Jerome dominate Christendom till the time of the Reformation.
Excellent point.
Re: Aramaic "autograph" - Mike Kar - 11-17-2008
Stephen,
To my understanding the New Testament Latin vulgate became the dominate TRANSLATION from the Greek - much in the same way that, today, our English NT TRANSLATIONS dominate in the West (N. America, Europe and many other locations.) Latin was the language of the "clergy" and the language of most of North Africa. Everyone pretty much knew(from their point of view now) that the Greek was the language of the original manuscripts. English is the common language in n. America today and pretty much the street language throughout Europe yet 98% of NT scholars accept the fact the our english translations are based on the Greek manuscript texts.
Re: Aramaic "autograph" - Stephen Silver - 11-19-2008
Mike Kar Wrote:Stephen,
To my understanding the New Testament Latin vulgate became the dominate TRANSLATION from the Greek - much in the same way that, today, our English NT TRANSLATIONS dominate in the West (N. America, Europe and many other locations.) Latin was the language of the "clergy" and the language of most of North Africa. Everyone pretty much knew(from their point of view now) that the Greek was the language of the original manuscripts. English is the common language in n. America today and pretty much the street language throughout Europe yet 98% of NT scholars accept the fact the our english translations are based on the Greek manuscript texts.
Shlama Akhi Mike:
Agreed. Also, I admit that I am a child of western culture. My knowledge of the Semitic origin of the New Testament is relatively recent (10 years) compared to the longstanding tradition of western scholarship that the Greek New Testament is the original autograph.
I'll try to make my point another way. The chasm between the eastern CoE and the western Catholic, New Testament manuscript traditions, is twofold.
Jewish Autonomy in the East:
1) The CoE has as its founding fathers the melding and consolidation in the first century, of believing Jews (all twelve tribes) and believing Gentiles together in the primitive formation of the New Testament church with the Aramaic Peshitta as the "autograph". On the other hand, the western Catholic church began in 325 A.D. with Emperor Constantine's legalization of Christianity as the state religion with the Greek New Testament as the "autograph". The spoken Latin of the Roman Empire was a vehicular transfer of the text of the New Testament from Greek by Jerome in 382 A.D., hence the Latin Vulgate. Aramaic was the spoken language of the Assyrians shortly after the Flood and became the defacto language of choice in the writing of the New Testament (I'm speaking as an Aramaic Primacist).
Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages:
2) The Jewish nation had established themselves quite well in Beit Naharain with a degree of autonomy in the Hakkari in the north, since the Assyrian conquests transplanted the ten northern tribes. Later, when the Jews were exiled in Babylon to the south they established rabbinical schools. This autonomy of the Jews was not mirrored in the Roman Empire. Rome subdued Syria, Judah and Samaria beginning in 63 B.C. Nevertheless, Aramaic, not Greek or Latin, remained as the spoken language of the Jews under Roman domination in Syria, Judea and Samaria. The Hebrew scriptures were read in the synagogues since the time of Ezra the scribe. In those same synagogues the Rabbis and Levites taught the people in the language of the Targums which was Aramaic. The cohesive and comprehensive sisterhood of Hebrew and Aramaic has always been the vernacular of Judaism since the Patriarchs. Furthermore, the Talmud has preserved the Mishnaic statements and the Gamara arguments about the dangers of learning Greek culture (language, culture/traditions and philosophy).
Quote:Talmud Masekhta Sotah 49a: Mishna
DURING THE WAR OF QUIETUS THEY DECREED AGAINST [THE USE OF] CROWNS WORN BY BRIDES AND THAT NOBODY SHOULD TEACH HIS SON GREEK.
Talmud Masekhta Sotah 49b:Gamara
AND THAT NOBODY SHOULD TEACH HIS SON GREEK. Our Rabbis taught: When the kings of the Hasmonean house fought one another, Hyrcanus was outside and Aristobulus within. Each day they used to let down denarii in a basket, and haul up for them [animals for] the continual offerings. An old man there, who was learned in Greek wisdom, spoke with them in Greek, saying: ???As long as they carry on the Temple-service, they will never surrender to you???. On the morrow they let down denarii in a basket, and hauled up a pig. When it reached half way up the wall, it stuck its claws [into the wall] and the land of Israel was shaken over a distance of four hundred parasangs. At that time they declared,- ???Cursed be a man who rears pigs and cursed be a man who teaches his son Greek wisdom!??? Concerning that year we learnt that it happened that the ???omer had to be supplied from the gardens of Zarifim and the two loaves from the valley of En-Soker. But it is not so! For Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian language in the land of Israel? Either use the holy tongue or Greek! And R. Joseph said: Why use the Syrian language in Babylon? Either use the holy tongue or Persian! ??? The Greek language and Greek wisdom are distinct. But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, What means that which is written: Mine eye affecteth my soul, because of all the daughters of my city? There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom, and of these there remained only I here and the son of my father's brother in Assia! ??? It was different with the household of Rabban Gamaliel because they had close associations with the Government; for it has been taught: To trim the hair in front is of the ways of the Amorites; but they permitted Abtilus b. Reuben to trim his hair in front because he had close associations with the Government. Similarly they permitted the household of Rabban Gamaliel to study Greek wisdom because they had close associations with the Government.
So, what am I saying here? The New Testament was birthed out of the Jewish nation and quite naturally it used the language of Holy Scripture, Hebrew and Aramaic. Since the time of Ezra the Scribe and the establishment of The Great Synagogue, this inseparable Hebrew and Aramaic link has been used to convey the Holy Scriptures. In contradistinction, Latin and Greek are late arrivals. Classical Greek, in written form didn't exist till the 7th century B.C. Linear B, the failed written form ceased 400 years earlier. The oldest Latin inscriptions are from 600 B.C. Neither Latin or Greek took part in the formation of the Holy Scriptures (since Moses) and are not the best foundation upon which to build the house. However, as any language of the tribes and peoples of the world, Latin and Greek are valid vernacular vehicles. English is the universal language of the world today (air traffic control is in English). English has as its predominant roots both Greek and Latin. For truth's sake, and the well being of the Body of Meshikha universally, it's paramount to resolve the issue of New Testament primacy once and for all. Isn't that why we're having this conversation?
<!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->
Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Re: Aramaic "autograph" - Mike Kar - 11-21-2008
Stephen,
Thank-you. Just to let you know that I have scanned through your reply. Thanks for the time. I will have to read it and digest it again in the near future. Just to let you know though that I am still hanging around. I'm in a bit of time constraints right now. Take care of yourself and talk to you later as , I believe, will make more of a lenghty reply later. It should not really be too lengthy. Thanks for your time and efforts. Yes, much of what you have to say is true as far as why we are here. To resolve, finally, in what language the New Testament letters were written in. I would spill out more but have to go now.
Cordially,
Mike