Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wikipedia statements about Peshitta
#1
According to the on-line Encyclopedia called Wikipedia
"New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek."

Wikipedia allows editing,

Will some Peshitta schlolat correct this and other misstatements
under the heading "Pehitta"?

Otto
Reply
#2
ograabe Wrote:According to the on-line Encyclopedia called Wikipedia
"New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek."

Wikipedia allows editing,

Will some Peshitta schlolat correct this and other misstatements
under the heading "Pehitta"?

Otto
It says it was possibly translated though the evidence is less than clear" which seem in line with the refernce to Sebastian Brock which says "most scholars believe"
Reply
#3
Just wondering, is anybody here going to do what Otto suggested and provide input on Wikipedia? I would think that some of the experts around here would want to do that.

I particularly have interest in anyone who would go heads-up against the professionals like Sebastian Brock. If the professionals are so convinced that the Peshitta was translated from the Greek, I would like to see their evidence. Frankly, I don't think the Peshitta follows the NA28 / USB5 Greek text, nor that the latter Greek text follows the Peshitta close enough to think that one was the direct product of the other. Polysemy examples around here don't convince me of anything.

Bottom line, what evidence to those like Sebastian Brock have that the Peshitta was revised from the Greek? I'd like someone to give me their arguments. *Surely* the professionals have supplied some kind of evidence to back up their claims. What is it? Bring it here and set it before me, if you will. But as for Wikipedia, why haven't any of you bothered to edit it?
Reply
#4
(01-03-2020, 07:23 AM)Thomas Wrote: Just wondering, is anybody here going to do what Otto suggested and provide input on Wikipedia?  I would think that some of the experts around here would want to do that.

I particularly have interest in anyone who would go heads-up against the professionals like Sebastian Brock.  If the professionals are so convinced that the Peshitta was translated from the Greek, I would like to see their evidence.  Frankly, I don't think the Peshitta follows the NA28 / USB5 Greek text, nor that the latter Greek text follows the Peshitta close enough to think that one was the direct product of the other.  Polysemy examples around here don't convince me of anything.

Bottom line, what evidence to those like Sebastian Brock have that the Peshitta was revised from the Greek?  I'd like someone to give me their arguments.  *Surely* the professionals have supplied some kind of evidence to back up their claims.  What is it?  Bring it here and set it before me, if you will.  But as for Wikipedia, why haven't any of you bothered to edit it?

Wallace has a blog in which I posted pro-Peshitta-primacy arguments, until he stopped me-- see below.  He never responded to any of my arguments (unless you count 'be quiet.')
Apparently a global warming expert has tried correcting the Wiki global warming entry numerous times, but each time, his corrections are immediately undone.  Apparently the Intelligent Design Wiki has bogus claims, but as soon as they're corrected, the changes are undone.

Daniel B. Wallace ....@....com
To d....
Dec 21, 2014 at 4:00 PM


I have allowed you to post several lengthy comments about an Aramaic original NT at danielbwallace.com, but it is my policy not to let this blogsite be a place for an individual to advance an ideology or use the site for propaganda. So, you have posted your last comment on this blog.

dbw
Reply
#5
@DavidFord: I don't know anything about Daniel Wallace, but am only speaking about Wikipedia. Has anyone tried updating Wikipedia?

But on the other subject, do you, David, have insights on what Greek primacists argue--especially those who are in high standing in Aramaic studies, such as Professor Sebastian Brock? I really just want to know *both* sides of the argument without being blinded by bias, either way.
Reply
#6
(01-06-2020, 01:15 AM)Thomas Wrote: @DavidFord: I don't know anything about Daniel Wallace, but am only speaking about Wikipedia.  Has anyone tried updating Wikipedia?

But on the other subject, do you, David, have insights on what Greek primacists argue--especially those who are in high standing in Aramaic studies, such as Professor Sebastian Brock?  I really just want to know *both* sides of the argument without being blinded by bias, either way.

I updated Wiki with some book titles.  

I don't know what Greek primacists argue.  I told Daniel Wallace some thoughts, but he told me to go away.  I tried to argue with a guy on youtube, but he refused to respond.  I'm posting material to a guy who translated Luke from Greek, and who would like Peshitta primacy to be true, but thus far, I've heard practically nothing in the area of pro-Greek-primacy arguments from him.
As an idea, try to engage a Greek primacy advocate in a dialogue, and see how far your arguments take you.  I suspect we're still in stage 1:
“first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
Reply
#7
Thanks, David.
Reply
#8
(01-08-2020, 07:45 AM)Thomas Wrote: Thanks, David.

Thanks for mentioning Wiki.  It's fun editing it.  I've thus far mainly worked with the list of Aramaic to English book titles, and the 'specific verses' section.
https://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._Testament
Reply
#9
Does Malphono Sebastian Brock feel free to express what he really believes, now that he is retired? Or maybe this is just pious talk?

Some thoughts from a Sebastian Brock video posted online:

- If you can speak Liturgical Syriac and could go back 2000 years, you could converse with Saint Thomas, and you'd understand each other pretty well
- Liturgical Syriac preserves the dialect of Aramaic spoken by our Lord
- etc.


View the whole video is short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUEDtpTs_tE
Thoughts?
Reply
#10
A top dog Greek Primacist's attitude, when challenged. - Thirdwoe
#1 Thursday, December 12th, 2013, 02:38 am
I had started a thread over at "New Testament Textual Criticism", a Facebook page with over 1,770 members, led by a Greek textual scholar of some standing, and after it was gaining some steam and getting some likes and responses...he came in and shut it down, and removed me from the group, which I had been part of for about two years.

Here was his two responses, when I brought up Paul Younan's challenge about finding a translational error from a supposed Greek source text for the Peshitta.

James M Leonard: It is our intention that this website reflect mainstream NT Textual Criticism, and that no idiosyncratic views be unduly represented. This being the case, we advise participants that Aramaic Primacy is an idiosyncratic perspective that is not likely ever to arise in the estimation of New Testament scholars, and hardly deserving of scholarly effort to refute it.

James M Leonard: Those interested in discussing Aramaic Priority are encouraged to take their discussions to other venues other than this mainstream TC site.

=============================================================.
(01-11-2020, 04:20 AM)borota Wrote: Does Malphono Sebastian Brock feel free to express what he really believes....
View the whole video is short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUEDtpTs_tE
Thoughts?

I agree it's nice to memorize the Lord's Prayer in its original Aramaic.  Simone Weil memorized the prayer in its Greek translation, and had a mystical experience when saying it.
Reply
#11
Sebastian Brock is considered the top authority on Syriac these days, as far as I know.
Him saying that Liturgical Syriac is the same dialect as the one Jesus spoke, I think it's huge. Unless that was just some sort of motivational speaking, to encourage the youngsters in that church to learn Aramaic.
If it is the same dialect, then by implication it is the same language. Liturgical Syriac, as far as I know, is nothing more than various text from Peshitta. So what he is saying in a roundbout way, the language of Peshitta is the exact language that Jesus spoke.
Chuck, Paul any comments here?
Reply
#12
Thank you very much for that link to Professor Sebastian Brock's video.  Here is an excerpt of his exact words, transcribed verbatim (although note the ellipsis where I skipped a portion).

"I'm going to let you into a secret of another kind of travel, and that is how to travel back in time 2,000 years.  And it's very simple.  You need to learn the "Our Father, who art in heaven," in Syriac.  Abuwn d'bashmaya.  And if you do, then you can, in your mind, travel back 2,000 years, and you could say it in company with St. Thomas.  And he would understand, pretty well, what you're saying; and you would understand him when he prayed the Lord's prayer.  So, this is the great merit of Syriac, that it will--the liturgical language of the Syria-Malabar Church--it's preserved this wonderful language--the dialect of Aramaic spoken by our Lord.  And this language was the one in which Christianity spread east. (. . .) So every time you go to a church, you will hear--even if it's only the English part--you must remember that underneath this, the actual original text is in Syriac.  And this will take you back, like the Lord's prayer, 2,000 or so years.  So that is why Syriac is such an important feature in all of your tradition."

YouTube, "Professor Sebastian Brock talks about the East Syriac Tradition and Language" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUEDtpTs_tE (0:51-4:49 in the video)
Reply
#13
(01-16-2020, 03:18 AM)Thomas Wrote: Thank you very much for that link to Professor Sebastian Brock's video.  Here is an excerpt of his exact words, transcribed verbatim (although note the ellipsis where I skipped a portion).

"I'm going to let you into a secret of another kind of travel, and that is how to travel back in time 2,000 years.  And it's very simple.  You need to learn the "Our Father, who art in heaven," in Syriac.  Abuwn d'bashmaya.  And if you do, then you can, in your mind, travel back 2,000 years, and you could say it in company with St. Thomas.  And he would understand, pretty well, what you're saying; and you would understand him when he prayed the Lord's prayer.  So, this is the great merit of Syriac, that it will--the liturgical language of the Syria-Malabar Church--it's preserved this wonderful language--the dialect of Aramaic spoken by our Lord.  And this language was the one in which Christianity spread east. (. . .) So every time you go to a church, you will hear--even if it's only the English part--you must remember that underneath this, the actual original text is in Syriac.  And this will take you back, like the Lord's prayer, 2,000 or so years.  So that is why Syriac is such an important feature in all of your tradition."

YouTube, "Professor Sebastian Brock talks about the East Syriac Tradition and Language" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUEDtpTs_tE (0:51-4:49 in the video)

Thank you, Thomas. This is an exact representation of what he's saying on the video.
There is also another video where he says something that goes like this: Experts in Galilean Aramaic reconstructed Lord's prayer in Galilean and what they ended up with was quite similar to what we have right now in Peshitta... If I come across this again, I'll post it.
So I suppose Steve C. reconstruction might not be that close to reality, as  his reconstruction diverges quite a bit from Peshitta.
Reply
#14
Yes, I would love to see that video on Galilean reconstruction.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)