Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jesus? title as ?lord? and Preservation of the Peshitta
#1
Hello,

Could someone please help me!!

Preservation of the Peshitta:

If the text has been copied perfectly, then I would imagine that the grammar and language is somewhat ancient (as if we compared Old English with modern English); is this the case?

Is the text in an ancient or modern Syriac script or has the script remained constant throughout the centuries?

Also, were the four NT gospels ?separated? from the Diatessaron, or had they also been preserved as separate texts by the Eastern Church or did they translate Greek versions of the gospels back into Aramaic?

Title of Jesus:

How is Jesus referred to in the Peshitta?

Adon - Lord used for men, angels and God (meaning master, owner or lord.)
Adoneinu ? Lord as was used for David ? 1 Sam 25:14, 7; 1 Kings 1:45
Adoneinu ? LORD used for God ? (varies in the Hebrew spelling for the previous word) 1 Sam 16:16
Adonai ? LORD; God ? Isaiah 6:1; Genesis 15:2
(Above titles are in Hebrew)

"The Lord's Prayer survives in the Aramaic language in the form given to it in the Syriac Peshitta version of the New Testament. The dialect of Syriac in which it is written is not the dialect that would have been spoken by Jesus of Nazareth or his followers.[31] Therefore, claims that the Peshitta Lord's Prayer is "the original" are false: it too is translated from the Greek text of Matthew 6:9-13. A slightly different and older Aramaic version of the Lord's Prayer also exists.[32]" - Source: Wikipedia

Which dialect is used in the Peshitta?

I would appreciate the help. Thank you!

Peace & Blessings.
Reply
#2
Hello there, and welcome. Before i answer your thoughtful questions, a disclaimer:
i am not necessarily a Peshitta primacist, i just stumbled across the idea about 6 months ago. i read a lot about it and do my own research. Currently i am an agnostic as to which manuscript is the "best", and in which language it is written, but i think the most important thing is to realize that the differences are not all too great. The English Peshitta translations are basically the same as the KJV or any other Bible translation (save some junk). If that is too open-minded, i apologize, but in my honest opinion, there is no single individual on this planet that can currently say what is the original with enough information to back that conclusion up. There is a lot of work to be done here.

Quote:If the text has been copied perfectly, then I would imagine that the grammar and language is somewhat ancient (as if we compared Old English with modern English); is this the case?

Is the text in an ancient or modern Syriac script or has the script remained constant throughout the centuries?
The Peshitta is ancient. There can be no question about it. i think the earliest complete manuscript dates around 350AD, which is very similar to the Greek. Unlike the Greek, there are very little to no earlier fragments, because the copyist's tradition forbade to keep damaged manuscripts. The 350AD copy is 100% the same as any modern ones, with the difference that it is a little dusty.

i believe (but don't know) the modern Syriac is heavily dependant on the Peshitta Syriac. Like in germany the standard German was only made popular by Martin Luther. His Bible translation became a very big influence on language. i percieve it to be the same for syriac.

Quote:Also, were the four NT gospels ?separated? from the Diatessaron, or had they also been preserved as separate texts by the Eastern Church or did they translate Greek versions of the gospels back into Aramaic?

i believe you are asking if the gospels were seperated / singled out from the NT canon at one time in the Aramaic? If so, you may refer to the "Old Syriac", which is in fact based on the Peshitta, but also "corrected" using some Greek manuscripts. So, in a way, the "Old Syriac" is a translation, but only in the places it differs from the Peshitta. The Peshitta existed long before the so-called "Old Syriac", and in my personal opinion, it was some kind of project by the catholics or something.

Edit: i read it again, i don't know why i didn't get your question the first time. i kind of assumed you expressed yourself strangely...
The Diatessaron has no relation to the Gospels of the Peshitta In the manner you propose. The Peshitta Gospels are the same as the Greek (as in, they are virtually the same, have the same order etc.), and no retrofitting or anything took place. The Peshitta Gospels were most certainly not taken from the Diatessaron.

Quote:"The Lord's Prayer survives in the Aramaic language in the form given to it in the Syriac Peshitta version of the New Testament. The dialect of Syriac in which it is written is not the dialect that would have been spoken by Jesus of Nazareth or his followers.[31] Therefore, claims that the Peshitta Lord's Prayer is "the original" are false: it too is translated from the Greek text of Matthew 6:9-13. A slightly different and older Aramaic version of the Lord's Prayer also exists.[32]" - Source: Wikipedia

Which dialect is used in the Peshitta?
Just because wikipedia (or anyone else) claims it to be a translation does not make it so. i believe most people here would argue that Jesus spoke the same dialect, however, the fact that the Peshitta sometimes interprets his words (like Mk. 15:34) is an indication against that. i should, however, point out that mostly the Peshitta does not do that (cf. Mt. 27:46; MK. 5:41, 7:43). My opinion is that the two dialects are nearly inseparable but not necessarily 100% equal. No more different than two dialects from two neighbouring cities maybe.

Quote:How is Jesus referred to in the Peshitta?

Adon - Lord used for men, angels and God (meaning master, owner or lord.)
Adoneinu ? Lord as was used for David ? 1 Sam 25:14, 7; 1 Kings 1:45
Adoneinu ? LORD used for God ? (varies in the Hebrew spelling for the previous word) 1 Sam 16:16
Adonai ? LORD; God ? Isaiah 6:1; Genesis 15:2
(Above titles are in Hebrew)
There was another discussion about this recently. First, let me point out that
1) the OT clearly identifies Jesus to be YHWH (if you don't believe it, check out Jer. 23:5-6 for example)
2) the greek NT does so (for example Mk. 1:3->Is. 40:3-5).
Now, to answer your question:
i am not educated enough to give you an answer to every single word (i hope someone will, though it may be hard to differenciate between your two andoneiu's, aramaic is still quite different from hebrew), but i will try to give you the most important informations: Virtually anyone that is a Peshitta primacist agrees that the Peshitta identifies Jesus as YHWH ("LORD" of the OT). i believe if we can undoubtebly agree on that, anything else in this regard is of less importance.

About your word list: andoneiu is "Lord" (adon, your first word) added with "my", it is not a word by itself, it is changed by the grammar. 1 Ki. 1:45 has no reference to adon (?). There is no discernable separation between your two andoneiu's (aleph-dalet-nun; aleph-dalet-waw-nun), both are used to identify God and men as far as i know. Also, be careful with those capitals. You should only write "LORD" when you are refering to YHWH, as to not cause confusion.
Adonai is present in Is. 6:1 and Gen. 15:2, but again it is not "LORD", just "Lord" or "God". Mind the difference.

Most of your questions seem thoughtful, however you seem to be a little rough cut on your hebrew, and on the titles of God in general. Let me help you out if you are interested in the topic.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#3
Thank you very much for your help.

I am aware of the differences between "LORD" and "Lord". In my Bibles (NIV & NTL), Jesus is referred to as "Lord" and not "LORD" even in for Mark 1:3. Yes, I am only just "acquainted" with HEBREW.

Quote:2) the greek NT does so (for example Mk. 1:3->Is. 40:3-5).

Does it say "Theos" (God) or "Kurios" (Lord)?

Quote:There was another discussion about this recently.
Could you kindly link me to it.

Thanks again!!
Reply
#4
Quote:I am aware of the differences between "LORD" and "Lord". In my Bibles (NIV & NTL),
As long as you don't use the NWT, i won't have a problem with that. Though there is nothing wrong with other translations as well. i like AMP, and use KJV a lot, though it is NOT "the best".
Quote:Jesus is referred to as "Lord" and not "LORD" even in for Mark 1:3. Yes, I am only just "acquainted" with HEBREW.
Quote:2) the greek NT does so (for example Mk. 1:3->Is. 40:3-5).

Does it say "Theos" (God) or "Kurios" (Lord)?
Naturally it says kurios. Read what i say afterwards. My point is not that the greek NT says "Yahweh" or anything, but that you should track back the quote to the OT, and check out what the message was. If John purposefully changed the message of the verse from "YHWH" to just "Lord in general", what prophet would he be? It is YHWH.

Quote:
Quote:There was another discussion about this recently.
Could you kindly link me to it.

Thanks again!!
i can and will. But, please note that the discussion only got to the subject of Christ's divinity after getting off topic. Also, it is quite lenghty, and some of the "less holy", harsh words are in use. http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2569. By the way, if your interest is only in these specific titles, you won't find much here. It speaks of Christ's divinity (which at first seemed your major interest), but not about the titles.

So, back to the whole titles issue. In the Old Testament, God has many titles (Adon, Adonai, El, Eloah, Elohim, El Shaddai, ....). Those titles are also applied to idols, angels and humans. That is why the use of those titles in order to undeniably refer to the almighty creator God is only limited. But, His Holy, personal, unique, and uncomparable name YHWH (=Yahweh) is clearly a better canididate for that task. However, since the Jews believed this name to be too sacred to be spoken, they said "Adonai" (Lord) instead. This custom was carried along in translation, thus all OT quotes containing YHWH in the New Testament write "kurios" (Lord) instead of YHWH or Yahweh. That does not mean whenit uses "kurios" it is not refering to YHWH, it just means kurios has more than one menaing.
So, both the regular word "Lord" as well as YHWH are expressed by the same word. Since, however, Lord can also refer to humans, we have a bit of a dilemma here. There is no clear and absolutely distinctive reference to YHWH in the Greek New Testament. Because there is no such distinction, we have to deduct it from OT quotes, or context etc. Since th synonym kurios can mean several things, some references will remain a matter of opinion. If, however, an OT quote is involved, there is no doubt it refers to YHWH.

The Peshitta, however, has a distinction between YHWH and all other titles. The word used is Marya, which means "The Lord". This word is well-known from the Targums (Aramaic OT translation that likely predates the NT), where it is exclusively used to refer to YHWH. Thus, in the Peshitta, there are clear references that tieJesus to Yahweh, such as:
1Corinthians 12:3 - I therefore make known to you, that there is no man who by the Spirit of Aloha speaketh, and saith that Jeshu is accursed; and no man also can say that Jeshu is THE LORD unless by the Spirit of Holiness.
The "THE LORD" here is Marya, so this is a direct identification of Jesus as YHWH. In fact, it is quite impossible to accept the Peshitta and reject Jesus as YHWH. But, please don't let your theology decide what Bible to use, but rather your Bible what theology to have. There is a lot of proof for Peshitta primacy (though i have not yet reached a personal final viewpoint). i suggest reading into this book: http://www.nccg.org/mlt/pdf/NTGreek.pdf.

What i am more concerned about is that the NT claims Jesus to be the supreme God of creation in so many ways so many times, regardless of which manuscripts you use. i do not understand how people end up believeing in two seperate entities, personalitles, or whatever.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)