Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steve's opinion of The Aramaic Scriptures (The Peshitta)
#1
Below you will find part of a discussion on Facebook that I just read through, that I find very revealing, and brings answers to a few questions I had about Steve Caruso's heart and mind regarding The Aramaic Scriptures (The Peshitta).

He seems to think that both the language and words of Jesus and His Apostles have been lost when it comes to The Scriptures, and that what has come down to us in The Aramaic Scriptures, is something very different than what He and they would have spoken and written. Of course Steve is very deceived in his beliefs, if its true that he thinks that way, which looks to be so, and so I think it is important to show what he is saying to people.
 



Bishop James Clifton Steve, is the Aramaic on the Peshitta.org site (interlinerar link) authentic Galilean Aramaic in your opinion?
[/url][Image: safe_image.php?d=AQBN0V0o9zsFB-9R&w=90&h...&upscale=1]


Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament
The on-line version of the Church of the East Peshitta New Testament text in Aramaic/English Interlinear Format.
peshitta.org



May 28 at 9:59am · Like


[*]

Steve Caruso The Aramaic on Peshitta.org is Classical Syriac, an Eastern Aramaic dialect from no earlier than the late 3rd/early 4th century. Galilean is in a different branch entirely.
[Image: safe_image.php?d=AQBN0V0o9zsFB-9R&w=90&h...&upscale=1]


Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament
The on-line version of the Church of the East Peshitta New Testament text in Aramaic/English Interlinear Format.
peshitta.org



May 28 at 5:37pm · Like




Bishop James Clifton So the language of Jesus and His disciples is no longer in use anywhere--culturally or ecclesiastically? What did Lamsa speak? Thanks, as I said before, I read and hear different thing regarding Aramaic.
May 28 at 8:46pm · Like




Steve Caruso Indeed. Early Galilean (outside of a few reconstructed bits I speak with my children and am trying to teach others -- which isn't much) is for all purposes "dead". The dialect group descended from it ("Galilean" or the greater "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" family, a corpus primarily from the Byzantine Era) is seldom used, obscure, and misunderstood to the point that there is no reliable or accessible grammar published in English. Its linguistic culture was eclipsed with the rise of Islam in the 600s-700s. The only surviving dialect in the entire Western Aramaic branch is Ma'loula, and it's as close to what Jesus spoke as Beowulf is to Modern English.

Lamsa spoke Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Classical Syriac.
May 29 at 6:23am · Edited · Like




Bishop James Clifton So based on what I'm hearing you say, it would appear that none of the Aramaic New Testament translations by anyone is worth even reading or studying, correct?
May 29 at 7:34am · Like




[url=https://www.facebook.com/AramaicSteve?fref=ufi]Steve Caruso Indeed, most of the "Aramaic New Testament" translations from the Peshitta presently on the market -- despite a few insights simply from how Syriac is closer to Galilean than Greek -- are gimmicky and aren't all that useful. To get a better idea of the Aramaic behind Jesus' teachings one would do better with the works of Matthew Black or Maurice Casey.

Something that I'd love to see would be a standard translation, annotated with the readings in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament and Lectionary, which is contemporary to the Peshitta, but is written in a Western Aramaic dialect (Christian Palestinian Aramaic) which a lot closer to what Jesus spoke in many respects (vocabulary, grammar, and idiom) than Syriac, and has already proven to have a few insights that the Peshitta missed.
[*]
May 29 at 8:25am · Edited · Like


.
Reply
#2
ewww!! The Linguistic HeresyTongue

Since it is the difference between Old Galilean Aramaic and Classical Syriac that constitute the raison d'être for Steve Caruso's project, I would see his statement more as a marketing necessity than an actual opinion. 

Chuck, what do you think?
Did Jesus speak Classical Syriac?

I I r c, you wrote at one point that you used to be interested in the Western text before you discovered the virtues of the Eastern Peshitta. Was that the western text of the Peshitto or the Western textual type of the NT, as in Vetus Latina, Old Syriac, Codex Bezae et alia?

I would like to see something like Nestlé-Aland's Novum Testamentum but in Aramaic, based on perhaps just the 30 or so most important mss, including all variations in the apparatus and translating The Versions into Aramaic for the apparatus. It could feature either the Western Textual type or the Eastern Peshitta or both as critical texts.
Reply
#3
There would be very little to show as to variants between The Peshitta and those versions of it produced in the West. There are a few changes that were made to the original form of The Peshitta (Eastern Text) which involve doctrine, but the others are just addition of certain verses and words found in the Greek version in use among the West, and some dialectical changes and name spellings.

As to what dialect or rather dialects Jesus may have used in the 1st century, not one soul on this planet knows for sure. Based on the wording found in The Gospels though, it seems He knew a number of them, or that those dialects were not so dissimilar as to cause too much confusion as to what was being said. I don't see why Jesus would not be multi-dialect, and use what was best sutied for the audience. He may have used some Greek and Latin as well.

According to what is written in Assemani's Bibliotheca Orientalis, The Text/Words which have come down to us in The Peshitta, have been the same since 78 A.D. when it was given to The Church of the East in "Edessen Letters",

Do you find it odd that Steve calls his project "The Aramaic New Testament", while using an English translation of a certain Greek text for his main source text, and then the words of Jesus in his hypothetical "Galilean Dialect", which he has to admit may or may not have been what Jesus used as to the exact words Steve produces.

I will be sticking with the tried and true Aramaic Holy Scriptures as given in The Peshitta.

If anyone might find something that isn't true therein, please point it out and we can discuss it.

.
Reply
#4
Ok, I'll bite. A bit. Smile

But -- for now -- only to clear up on one thing: That's not what Assemani wrote.

He wrote, "De quodam pervetusto Evangelio, quod exstabat in sacra Ecclesia Ædium Romæorum in urbe Bagdado. Erat quodam Evangelium Edessenum (hoc est Syriacum Edessæ exaratum) pervetustum quidem, sed clarum ac dilucidunt, ex quo ne jota quidem unum deletum fuerat, legebatur autem clarius quam libri recens exarati & unus dumtaxat prior quinternio præ antiquitate ex eo exciderat."

This is Post-Classical Latin, so if you punch it into Google Translate (whose corpus is mostly from Classical Latin), and then massage the translation, you get the mish-mash of junk that Bauscher has on his webpage -- which is rubbish.

If you actually read the text properly it pretty much says -- and I translate off the cuff, here -- "About this old Gospel, which existed in the holy 'Church of the Roman Shrines/Tombs'[?] in the city of Bagdad: This was an Edessan Gospel (this is Edessa in Syria, note) [note: as opposed to Edessa in northern Greece] indeed old, but bright and easy to read, indeed not a single jot was blotted out/illegible, but [it] read more clearly like books recently inscribed, and at least one of the first [sets of] quinternions [note: 5-page quires, or page gatherings], due to its age, fell off." (Notes and glosses in [] are mine.)

No mention of "Edessan Letters" -- but he did disambiguate that it was from Edessa in Syria rather than Edessa in northern Greece (which was of more interest to classicists in his day).

He expressed bewilderment over how well-preserved the manuscript was despite how old the colophon dated it to and the fact that pages were missing, and marveled at how it was readable like it was brand new.

Most importantly: There is zero mention that this document was a Peshitta (or in Latin: Versio Simplex -- the term which he uses for it in all of his works). Assemani was a Maronite, after all. He would know a Peshitta when he saw one, and he would have called it as such.



[Image: assemani-p71.png]
(From Assemani's "Bibliothecæ Apostolicæ Vaticanæ Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus in Tres Partes Distributus" -- Versio Simplex = "Peshitta"; Heracleensis = "Harklean"; Palæstina = "Christian Palestinian Aramaic (Lectionary).")


No, instead he called it Evangelium Pervetustis (="Old Gospel" or "Ancient Gospel").

This was an Old Syriac Gospel.



Now that that's cleared up:

[Image: popcorn.gif~c200]

Please, by all means, continue making windows into my soul. Smile
Reply
#5
Steve, why didn't you translate the rest of it, which gives the colophon date and the persons name who scribed it? Of course you must doubt its production date, and it being a Peshitta Gospels manuscript, since it wouldn't lend to your personal opinions about the Peshitta's text and history, which are mistaken. 

It was read by the Church of the East Ministers, and was seen on a Church of the East Altar. And what timeframe was it seen? You know, Steve. And so you know what language and dialect it was written in.

You are still not being honest. 

Ask Shamasha Paul about that manuscript, and he can tell you more about its history.

.
Reply
#6
This Assemani quote has been discussed a lot here. In this thread they seem to conclude that Assemani didn't even see the manuscript but relies on a Mar Elia III.

Just the existence of so old a book (if its age wasn't exaggregated) wouldn't necessarily influence the Peshitta text, just like the existence of Codex Vaticanus (03/B) in Europe from at least 1475 had little to no impact on the texts used in Europe until the 19th century.

Quote:[...] at the same time two prelati kept me in constant conversation in Latin, and if I looked at a passage too long, they would snatch the book out of my hand. — Tregelles
Reply
#7
Who said anything about influencing the Peshitta's Text? It was/is the Peshitta Text. It couldn't be none other.

If you know anything about The Church of the East, Mar Elia III, The Peshitta Text, and what is witnessed to be stated in that manuscripts colophon, as recorded in Assemani's Bibliotecha, then you would know what Mar Elia III saw on The Altar in Bagdad in one of the Parishes of The Church of the East.

It was not any "old book" as you called it, but The Holy Gospels of The Peshitta Text. Mar Elia III knew well what it was, and those of The Church of the East who used it in their liturgy knew what it was too. 


.
Reply
#8
Akhay,

Please do note how masterfully Steve dodges the main points, as Thirdwoe explains - and, more importantly, puts the words "Old Syriac" in Assemani's mouth (curiously, centuries before the term was even coined by Cureton).  Of course to Steve, "Old Gospel" *must* mean "Old Syriac."

He would even have us believe that our own church, which in his hubris he seems to know better than we do, would have a copy of anything on the Holy Altar other then the official Peshitta during the reign of Mar Elia in the 12th century. (in Mar Sawrisho parish, Baghdad Iraq!)

I'm surprised he didn't mention it must have been in his beloved hillbilly Frankenstein dialect he calls "Galilean" (which no one cared enough to preserve, that's how precious and important those hillbillies were.)

Amazing, the lengths of desperation to which one is driven by the powerful forces of cognitive dissonance.

+Shamasha
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Quote:He would even have us believe that our own church, which in his hubris he seems to know better than we do, would have a copy of anything on the Holy Altar other then the official Peshitta during the reign of Mar Elia in the 12th century. (in Mar Sawrisho parish, Baghdad Iraq!)

Do you mean to say that Peshitta's status was such that even a book with provenience to year 78 Christ Era, if it were found to deviate from the common text, would be hidden away and replaced with a more recent copy of the Peshitta?
Reply
#10
Thirdwoe Wrote:Steve, why didn't you translate the rest of it, which gives the colophon date and the persons name who scribed it?

Because I didn't think that what the colophon was recorded to have said was in dispute. We were talking about Assemani's words, and Assemani didn't write the colophon.

Here it is for reference:

ܐܶܫܰܬܠܰܡ ܟܬܳܒܳܐ ܗܳܢܳܐ ܩܰܕܝܺܫܳܐ ܒܝܽܘܡ ܚܰܡܶܫܒܰܫܒܳܐ ܝܚ ܒܟܳܢܽܘܢ ܩܕܰܡ ܫܢܰܬ ܬܠܳܬܡܳܬܐ ܘܰܬܡܳܢܺܝܢ ܘܰܬܫܰܥ ܕܝܰ̈ܘܢܳܝܶܐ ܒܟܺܝܪܰܬ ܐܺܝ̈ܕܰܝܳܐ ܕܰܐܚܰܝ ܫܠܺܝܚܳܐ ܚܰܒܪܳܐ ܕܡܳܪܝ ܡܰܐܪܰܝ ܬܰܠܡܺܝܕܳܐ ܕܡܳܪܝ ܐܰܕܰܝ ܫܠܺܝܚܳܐ ܨܠܰܘܬܶܗ ܥܰܡܰܢ ܐܰܡܺܝܢ܆

(Side note: It *honestly* feels so good to be able to use Unicode properly on this board after so many years without it.)

And here is his translation of it:

Absolutus est sanctus iste liber Feria quinta, die 18. Canum prioris (hoc est Decembris) Anno Graecorum 389. (Christi 78.) propria manu Achæi Apostoli, focii Mar Marius Discipuli Mar Adæi Apostoli, cujus oratio nobiscum sit Amen.

Parenthetical remarks are his.

No real surprises there. The issue is not whether or not this manuscript existed or was penned at the time the colophon says it was. The issue is whether or not Assemani claimed that:

'The Text/Words which have come down to us in The Peshitta, have been the same since 78 A.D. when it was given to The Church of the East in "Edessen Letters",'

He demonstrably said no such thing. You misrepresented him.

Thirdwoe Wrote:It was/is the Peshitta Text. It couldn't be none other.

There has been zero indication that it was. All we have here is an offhand hand account of an Old/Ancient Gospel. It is not identified as a Peshitta.

You can try to *infer* it was such by making any assumptions you want. Assemani's words do not support this conclusion.

Paul Younan Wrote:"Old Syriac" in Assemani's mouth (curiously, centuries before the term was even coined by Cureton).  Of course to Steve, "Old Gospel" *must* mean "Old Syriac."

Apologies for ambiguity. I meant *an* Old Syriac Gospel as in a Gospel *in* Old Syriac. Not that this was one of *the* Old Syriac Gospels -- which themselves are an annoying misnomer, not being in Old Syriac but in Early Classical Syriac; they are "old" in comparison to the Syriac of the Peshitta (but we've had this conversation before Smile ).


Paul Younan Wrote:I'm surprised he didn't mention it must have been in his beloved hillbilly Frankenstein dialect he calls "Galilean" (which no one cared enough to preserve, that's how precious and important those hillbillies were.)

Paul, when you decided to be insulting like this on Facebook you took your posts down. I had assumed that you realized that this is not becoming of you. This strongly expresses to any third party reading this that you have little of substance to contribute, as insults are insubstantial.

The Galilean Aramaic dialect family is a well-defined corpus and many scholars have worked on understanding it (Oderberg, Sokoloff, Levias, Fassberg, etc. etc.). My work simply builds upon that established body of research in the context of the New Testament. No more, no less.

It also has nothing to do with the topic here.

I'm obviously not going to claim that an ancient first century Syriac Gospel from Edessa was written in Galilean as much as I'd claim that a first century Jewish Galilean spoke Syriac as his day-to-day language.

sestir Wrote:Do you mean to say that Peshitta's status was such that even a book with provenience to year 78 Christ Era, if it were found to deviate from the common text, would be hidden away and replaced with a more recent copy of the Peshitta?

I'd bet he would, as according to this ideology anything outside of the Peshitta is a corruption. Then again, this ideology would never admit that there could be an older or better text than the Peshitta.

Peshitta Primacy is to the Syriac New Testament as King James Version Onlyism is to the English New Testament.

Keep asking the right questions. Smile


-----

And with that I'm out again. I'll check back in a few days to a week or so. Or I can be snagged on Facebook. Smile 

I have much less time these days to engage in fringe theory than I used to.
Reply
#11
Steve,

The more you try to deny the obvious, the more you show me that either you are being dishonest in your attempt to hold onto your ideas, or that you have no common sense concerning the matter at hand. Maybe a combination of the two. In any case, your motives are called into question.

If that 78 A.D. manuscript were not in "Edessen letters", what letters do you think it would have been in, since it was given to The Church of the East, in Edessa? It sat on a Church of the East altar in Baghdad in the 12th century. Common sense, Steve.   

And if it were not the same Holy Text as found in The Peshitta, upon all the other altars of The Church of the East, don't you think that it would cause quite a stir that this 78 A.D. manuscript would be different in its wording and content than the trusted Peshitta Text, always used, and said to have never been changed since the Apostles gave this Holy Text to The Church of the East? 


.

sestir asked Paul:

"Do you mean to say that Peshitta's status was such that even a book with provenience to year 78 Christ Era, if it were found to deviate from the common text, would be hidden away and replaced with a more recent copy of the Peshitta?"

Steve commented:

"I'd bet he would, as according to this ideology anything outside of the Peshitta is a corruption. Then again, this ideology would never admit that there could be an older or better text than the Peshitta. Peshitta Primacy is to the Syriac New Testament as King James Version Onlyism is to the English New Testament."

Sestir, until Paul answers, I'll say this. Clearly and certainly The Holy Text was the same in both that manuscript on the Holy Altar of The Church of the East in the 12th century as it was in all the other Peshitta manuscripts on all the other Church of the East's Holy Altars. Do you think that no one noticed any differences in the wording in that manuscript from the 1st century down to the 12th century? If they were trying to hide it, why would it have been used on The Church of the East's Holy Altar? 

As for The Holy Text, it has always been known that The Holy Text given to The Church of the East has not been changed since it was first given to it by the Apostles in the 1st century.

Are you leaving again so soon Steve? Smile
Reply
#12
Sestir,

I will respond to your inquiry from personal experience as an ordained Deacon of the Church of the East.

If a book containing the Gospels, the Acts or the Prophets is found on an altar of any Church of the East parish, the readings contained therein must conform to the "hudra" ܚܘܕܪܐ which is the "cycle" of OT, Gospel and Epistle reading according to the seasonal liturgical calendar of the Church.

You should really pick yourself up a copy. It's quite an impressive work. About the length of your arm in thickness, and contained in three very large volumes. It's tremendous. I have a copy of all three volumes from Mar Addai Press in Thrissur, India. It is rare and would probably be very expensive. 

It even contains passages and hymns in Iranian and Turkic, from the days when the church was spread across the entirety of the Asian continent. 

For the same reason that an NIV, King James or any number of modern Assyrian or Arabic versions cannot be on the altar, no version which deviates from the official Peshitta can be (liturgically and legally) on the altar of the Church. Especially not in 12th century Baghdad. And not during the reign of Mar Eliya the Patriarch. This was his patriarchal cathedral.

If there were any indication that the version on question was anything other than the Peshitta, then we would expect that the hudra ܚܘܕܪܐ would have readings from the scriptures that reflected readings which depart from the Peshitta.

You can choose to follow common sense and reason/logic (not just take the word and experience of *every* clergyman of the Church of the East, or you can hypothesize and trust in a snake oil hypothesis.

Up to you brother. No skin off my back, I could care less frankly. But be prepared for ridicule by people who actually belong to this faith if you suggest anything other than the Peshitta was ever on an altar of Mar Sawrisho parish in Baghdad, in the 12th century. I don't care if it had Paul's personal handprint on it.

In love to you both (even Steve) Smile

+Shamasha
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#13
Thanks Paul!
I asked because you know a lot about the history of the Church of The East, and your elaboration resonates with both my experience and common sense. We tend to think of others like we know ourselves and certainly all of us four value ancient manuscripts, but lots of people don't, but are instead naïvely attached to the commands of contemporary authorities. A non-peshitta could have suffered a grim fate.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)