Peshitta Forum
Primacist Discussion on CARM - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Primacist Discussion on CARM (/showthread.php?tid=2307)



Primacist Discussion on CARM - Doug in CO - 04-14-2010

I have started a topic on CARM in which I am asking people how to explain the various examples given in "Was the Bible Really Written in Greek". The following is one of the responses. I'm curious what the response from here would be:

"Let me begin by saying that I read Aramaic, admittedly I check much of what I read against Sokoloff's dictionary. The ancient fathers of the church all agreed that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the native tongue of the Jews. The Old Syriac (Sinaiatic Palimpsest) is probably very close to the autograph, since nothing would have been lost in translation. This manuscript was written at the close of the 2nd century and it undoubtedly was copied from a first century exemplar.

John was written in very crude Greek (which I also read), but he is often using Aramaic structure, including asyndetons. He used lambanao excessively for took, accepted and received (dechomai is a much better word for received). However, the Syriac version of John is clearly a very free-handed translation of the Greek text (the best manuscript is Papyrus 66 -- circa 125 A.D. -- which I have translated into English). Subscription to John in several of the 5th/6th centuries of the Syriac Peshitta admit that both John and Luke wrote their Gospels in GREEK. So even the ancient churchmen in the Syriac speaking lands admitted that these two Gospels were not originally written in Syriac/Aramaic. Likewise, some of thes early manuscripts of the Peshitta also admit that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome and in the Roman = Latin tongue!

The only other parts of the New Testament which might have been written in a language other than Greek were Romans (Latin, you'll notice that the scribe was Tertius, which is a Latin name) and James which was supposedly written by a Galilean Jew (James the Just). Although Paul was a Pharisee, he was from the Dispersion (Greek city of Tarsus) and he travelled and wrote to people in Greek cities (Corinth, Ephesus, et al).

As for the Matthean genealogy, Uncials M and Koridethi, the Lake group and about 150 other minuscules included king Jehoiakim. Irenaeus (2nd century) also confirmed 3 complete sets of 14 men in each generation. Furthermore, the Old Syriac doesn't support your supposition about Joseph being Mary's father. The text of 1:16 says that Joseph was betrothed (d'mkyre) to Mariam.

by the Grace of God,


Mark aka DominusDei "


Re: Primacist Discussion on CARM - Nimrod Warda - 04-14-2010

Akhooni Mark,

First, you might want to point them over to this forum! Yes, I know it might entail a lot of digging on their end, but I feel confident in saying that they would find some very convincing evidence to counter their assumptions before they decide to post again.

Next, make it clear to them that they should stop grouping all Aramaic speaking church traditions together, and to rule out "studies" from others who do this as well. For all intensive purposes today we have 7 apostolic churches that all come from the areas in which Aramaic was spoke (not including the Indian churches).

1. (Assyrian) Church of the East
2. (Ancient) Church of the East *an offshout of #1
3. Chaldean Catholic Church *an offshout of #1
4. Syriac Orthodox Church
5. Syriac Catholic Church *an offshout of #4
6. Maronite Catholic Church (now mostly Arabic speaking)
7. Melkite Catholic Church (now only Arabic speaking)

As you probably already know, it is pretty much only members from the Church of the East that hold to the tradition of Aramaic Primacy. A few others from different churches do as well, but that is not the majority opinion. Moreover, the Church of the East was the ONLY branch of Christianity outside of the Roman empire, and so our logic is based upon our own history. I do not mean that to be offensive, but it is annoying when outsiders continually muddle up the facts. I know this is not normally on purpose, but it is like mainland China telling someone from Taiwan that they are Chinese (for lack of a better analogy).

It has also been spelled out numerous times that the Peshitta is NOT the Old Syriac (Curetonian / Sinaitic) or a derivation thereof. Numerous historic and linguistic facts have been presented, yet a few "educated" people in the past orchistrated some pretty complicated "reasoning" (full of assumptions) to explain something that does not follow basic logic.

In short, I would suggest that you tell them to check their facts, and THEN come back with a more organized discussion.

God Bless,

-Nimrod Warda-


Re: Primacist Discussion on CARM - Nimrod Warda - 04-14-2010

You can also link them to...

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1465&p=12500&hilit=powerpoint#p12500">viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1465&p=12500&hilit=powerpoint#p12500</a><!-- l -->


Re: Primacist Discussion on CARM - Doug in CO - 04-14-2010

Thanks for the quick response. Unfortunately, for whatever reason they restarted that site and required everyone to generate new accounts. No one is allowed to link with fewer than 50 (I think) posts. So it will be a little bit before I can link to anything. I've dropped names though, and anyone willing to put in a little effort will know where to start. Though I am basically persuaded by the Aramaic Primacy argument, there are things I don't understand about it, and I don't really know much about the language. Hopefully I'm representing the arguments correctly.


Re: Primacist Discussion on CARM - judge - 04-15-2010

Ok I have had some discsuuion with Mark at carm over the years.


Quote: This manuscript was written at the close of the 2nd century and it undoubtedly was copied from a first century exemplar.
I have repeatedly pulled Mark up on this point. He has never , and I have given him numerous opportunity to do so, explained in detail why this is so.
He has said IIRC that this was the view of Burkitt and that it was based on certain features of the language in the text.

Quote:Subscription to John in several of the 5th/6th centuries of the Syriac Peshitta admit that both John and Luke wrote their Gospels in GREEK. So even the ancient churchmen in the Syriac speaking lands admitted that these two Gospels were not originally written in Syriac/Aramaic. Likewise, some of thes early manuscripts of the Peshitta also admit that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome and in the Roman = Latin tongue!

These mss are not early but several hundred years after they were written, so the value of these colophons must be dubious.
Ask him for more specific information. I have asked him for this and received nothing.


Re: Primacist Discussion on CARM - judge - 04-15-2010

I had a very interesting discussion with mark once about whther Aphrahat quoted the OS. Mark claimed he did but despite many many attempts was never able to show Aphrahat quoting the OS word for word. He came up with things that resembled the OS but never had a word for word example.
Ask him about that too.


Re: Primacist Discussion on CARM - ograabe - 04-15-2010

I don't believe what is said as much as I believe my own eyes.

It is quite easy to observe that the Pershitta is superior to any Greek version. Also, the Greek versions are a hodge-podge of translational errors an varations.

For example, John 21: 15-17 is perfect and complete in the Pershitta, and the Greek versions have translation errors and very illogical dialogue.

Otto