Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Linguistics 101 - Languages and Dialects
#1
Dave,

Pay attention here unless you've already departed for good for the seventeenth time.

All languages, English included, are an umbrella of related regional, and sometimes even socio-demographic, dialects. There is no such thing as **THE** English Language. Never was, is not now, nor ever will be. That's how human speech works. Languages are constantly evolving and accents are constantly being formed and idiomatic expressions are always forming and people are constantly making up new words, mannerisms and even grammatical components in the different regions they reside in.

Likewise, there is no such thing as **THE** Aramaic language. No such thing as **THE** Arabic language. No such thing as **THE** Spanish language. No such thing as **THE** Chinese language.

All the languages that are spoken on this planet (not the one you live on) are umbrellas of mutually comprehensible dialects. Got that? An umbrella. Not anything in and of itself, only an umbrella.

Aramaic existed a long time before Jesus was born, and a long time even before Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were born. It was the language of three empires (even a non-Semitic one), it had classical periods where it became highly refined and was a lingua franca of its time.

In the thousands upon thousands of years of its existence, Aramaic had many variations. Even when it was an official language of three different empires that spanned a thousand years, it was not a single dialect.

There is no language on the face of this planet (again, not the one you live on) that is made up of one single, solitary dialect that everyone speaks the same way no matter where, or when, they live.

Next time you foolishly say something like "Syriac is just a dialect", be sure you aren't trying to fool someone else who knows vastly more (exponentially more) than you do about this topic.

Educate yourself a little bit before typing next time. Perhaps there really is something of value in your posts, perhaps you do have something to add here - but it is hard to recognize it among all the muck. Once you valiantly declare something that _stoopid_, my mind shuts off to the rest of what you've written.

Syriac __is__ Aramaic. Just like Palmyrene __is__ Aramaic. Just like Judean __is__Aramaic. Just like Hatran __is__ Aramaic. Just like Galilean __is__ Aramaic. Just like Samaritan__is__ Aramaic. Those are __all__ Aramaic. That's why Jesus could communicate with all of those people, and He did communicate with all those people - not in Greek, but in **their** own dialect of Aramaic. Aramaic is an umbrella that includes those, and the hundreds of other dialects over the 4,000 years of its existence, that it shelters.

The American Ocracoke dialect __is__ English. The American Bonac dialect __is__ English. The various Australian dialects __are__ English. The various Canadian, Carribean, Scottish, Welsh dialects __are__ English.

The Mandarin dialect __is__ Chinese. The Cantonese dialect __is__ Chinese. The Hakka dialect __is__ Chinese. The Shanghai dialect __is__ Chinese.

The Lebanese dialect __is__ Arabic. The Jordanian dialect __is__ Arabic. The Egyptian dialect __is__ Arabic. The Iraqi dialect __is__ Arabic. The Yemeni dialect __is__ Arabic. The Moroccan dialect __is__ Arabic.

The Cuban dialect __is__ Spanish. The Mexican dialect __is__ Spanish. The various dialects spoken in Spain itself __are__ Spanish. The Costa Rican dialect __is__ Spanish. The Puerto Rican dialect __is__ Spanish.

All these people can communicate with, and understand, each other just fine. These are all mutually intelligible dialects. They make up an umbrella, a **Language**.

If Syriac wasn't Aramaic, then it wouldn't make up 90% of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon - you fool. Syriac is the longest lasting, most comprehensive, most refined and most spoken Aramaic dialect of all of all time - and the *only* one that exists to this very day as a spoken first language. Syriac is 90% of all the Aramaic that we have in our hands.

I know you think God talks to you. The guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart does, too. You're not impressing me with the prophet/messenger act. If God were really working within you among us and for our benefit, He would have slapped you silly by now for all the bunk you've written.

Now, depart us for good again and until the next time you return read something that'll help you understand this topic so that we can have an meaningful discourse, or even debate should you desire.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
Paul, Paul, you wasted quite a bit of time describing a dialect of aramaic. You see, you are quite the educated man, but in the big umbrella of things, this language called syriac, never came into being or evolve until around the late 3rd century. I know, I know, that is dramatically wrong in "your" book completely, I know that you would just have all of these different ways to try and prove that it was there before that but, we have these learned men who we rely upon for their documented education backgrounds, these men are called scholars, these men are raised up by GOD for a reason, and the majority of them, throughout the centuries, would go about disagreeing with you completely.

Again, I know, I know,.... this is not what you want to hear nor do you want your fans here to understand, but it is true and has been documented. This syriac language is not, again not, considered true aramaic and has roots in the language only, not in the writings of the Apostles themselves.

I know, I know, it would seem that they, being the converted Jews that they were, would have spread their writings throughout mankind in a form of semitic language, but alas, we (that being us Born-again Christians) such as they, have this being called GOD who made such decisions for us on how HE wanted such things and there has not been anything to prove different to the fact that HE witnesses to.

Also, we (again us Born-again Christians) have this inner decision maker living within called The Holy Spirit who goes about leading us along the path that GOD, along with HIS Son Jesus, desires us to follow when we accept HIS will that HE desires for us to follow.

You see, history is at fault here because it can not document those decisions that GOD makes unless HE Himself documents it in HIS word. What we can do is take a step back and look at the current amount of history available to gain an insight as to what HE was doing throughout the process. What we find is that HE appears to have left any sort of racial culturistic background behind HIM when HE had HIS Apostles jump into the gentile regions. All the material points to the greek as being the language that HE decided to utilize in the outlay of HIS word to the regions. I guess you could say that when He said it was finished on the cross, He included quite a bit more in that phrase than we expected.

Letters to greek churchs, yep, in greek. To think different seems to call attention to the ignorance of the obvious.

Again, I know, I know, this is not acceptable to you since you have a vested interest into proving that HIS Apostles wrote HIS words in syriac, literally no matter what it takes, but I would caution that approach, as it is haphazard, at best, to your health.
Reply
#3
Dave Wrote:You see, you are quite the educated man, but in the big umbrella of things, this language called syriac, never came into being or evolve until around the late 3rd century.

Dave, you big dummy-head. The Syriac Dialect of Aramaic didn't "come into being" or "evolve" until around the late 3rd century?

From http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html :

Quote:Mesopotamian Syriac is one of this ancient group of Aramaic dialects which included the Galilean dialect that Jesus spoke. Syriac was spoken in south western Mesopotamia in the small kingdom of Osrhoene with its capital at Edessa. The earliest dated Syriac writings are from this kingdom. They are in the form of inscriptions found at Birecik, (near Edessa) dating from 6 AD, (see [12] pp. 1-2, Maricq 1962, and Pirenne 1963) and another inscription at Serrin dated AD 73 (see [12] pp. 2-3). These early Syriac inscriptions demonstrate that the Syriac language and the Estrangela Syriac script existed just before and just after Jesus' ministry. Another first century Syriac inscription was found in Jerusalem and dates from about 49 AD, [6] [7]. This demonstrates that Syriac was also known in Palestine in the first century AD. Many second century pagan Syriac inscriptions have also been discovered in Mesopotamia, [6] [7] [12]. Three legal documents have been discovered which were written in the Euphrates valley in the mid third century AD, (see [12] pp. 54-57, Brock 1991). These were written on parchment and dated: 28th December AD 240, 1st September AD 242 and AD 243. We also have the evidence of other early dated manuscripts written in Syriac. The earliest known literary Syriac manuscript was written in Edessa and is dated AD 411 [11]. Many other Syriac manuscripts survive which are dated between AD 411 and the present day. Ancient Syriac continues to be used today in the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Melkite Chalcedonian Church and the Church of the East. Therefore, Syriac is an ancient language which has been used for at least 2000 years, and it is still used today.

Syriac was not only spoken in Mesopotamia, it was also spoken in Antioch and northern Palestine. In fact, Syriac was still spoken by the ordinary people of Palestine many years after the time of Jesus. Several historical data points demonstrate this remarkable fact.

In about AD 385, a woman called Egeria ([9], pp79 - 80) wrote in her middle-eastern travel diary:

"In this province [Palestine] there are some people who know both Greek and Syriac, but others know only one or the other. The bishop may know Syriac, but never uses it. He always speaks in Greek, and has a presbyter beside him who translates the Greek into Syriac, so that everyone can understand what he means. Similarly, the lessons read in church have to be read in Greek, but there is always someone in attendance to translate into Syriac so that the people can understand."

This report, (confirmed by another similar one in Eusebius' history of the martyrs of Palestine which was written earlier, at the beginning of the 4th century AD) shows that the Syriac language continued to be used in the areas of northern Palestine where Jesus had actually taught, 300 to 350 years after His ministry.

The remarkable survival of Aramaic in Palestine is reinforced by further historical evidence from much later. The Byzantine emperor Justinian, as part of his strategy to Hellenize the orient, founded a new Syriac speaking catholic sect which was later called Melkite (see [9], p. 213 and [10], p. 77). However, in order to operate effectively, the Melkites found it necessary to translate their Greek scriptures into the local Western Aramaic dialect then used in Palestine. This spawned a large translated literature in Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) which included the bible and many other writings [4] [11]. Enough of this CPA literature survives to demonstrate that between about AD 530 and AD 1118, large numbers of people of Palestine still spoke a Western Aramaic dialect, more than a millennium after Christ.

Here are his references, for your reference:

1.
'Aramaic sources of Mark's gospel' Maurice Casey Publ.: Cambridge University Press 1998 ISBN 0 521 63314 1 (Hardback) Quoted by kind permission of the Author.
2.
'The lion handbook to the bible' Ed. by D. and P. Alexander Publ.: Lion 1974 ISBN 0 85648 010 X
3.
A brief history of the Syriac language (web page, with thanks to George Kiraz et al.).
4.
'An Aramaic Handbook' Ed. Franz Rosenthal, (4 volumes). Publ. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1967.
5.
'Remains of a very ancient recension of the four gospels in Syriac' William Cureton Publ.: John Murray, London 1858
6.
'Pagan Syriac monuments in the Vilayet of Urfa' Segal, J. B. Anatolian Studies, JBIAA 3 1953
7.
'Some Syriac inscriptions of the 2nd-3rd century AD' Segal, J. B. BSOAS 16/1 1954
8.
'Ancient Syriac documents' William Cureton 1864. Reprinted by Oriental Press, Amsterdam 1967.
9.
'Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic times.' J. Spencer Trimingham. Publ.: Librairie du Liban 1990
10.
'Edessa, the blessed city' J. B. Segal, OUP 1970
11.
'An album of dated Syriac manuscripts', William Henry Paine Hatch, AAAS 1946
12.
'Old Syriac (Edessean) inscriptions' Ed. H. J. W. Drijvers from the Semitic study series. Publ. Leiden, Brill 1972

Dave, you need to get your head out of the toilet and into some books before you make valiant statements next time like "The Holy Spirit is a broad" and "Syriac didn't exist until the late(!) 3rd century" - just had to throw that extra "late" in there, didn't ya?

Dave, you have no clue what you are talking about and you should just go away for good, again. When you come back next time, have an explanation, a Greek Primacist explanation, for how Acts 2:24 happened - I've been waiting for months for a good explanation. Go to your nearest seminary and find a Greek Primacist professor who is willing to take this challenge on and give me a reasonable answer for Acts 2:24 - a book supposedly written in Greek.

And then, when you have satisfactorily explained that one (we're still waiting), then you can point me to a mistake in the Aramaic Peshitta which arose from a grammatical error while translating from the Greek. In your model, there should be plenty that exist. I'd like for you to point me to one error in the Peshitta which can only be explained by the Aramaic translator making a grammatical mistake that could have only happened if he had a Greek original in front of him.

Then, and only then, will I worship your Greek-speaking Lord. Until then, I remain the servant of the Jewish Carpenter who spoke Aramaic.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
Quote:The Mandarin dialect __is__ Chinese. The Cantonese dialect __is__ Chinese. The Hakka dialect __is__ Chinese. The Shanghai dialect __is__ Chinese.
Little clarification here - Hakka, Shanghainese, Cantonese, Mandarin etc... are not merely dialects of Chinese. Chinese is the broad umbrella for many different languages. Just like "French" would encompany Langue de roi, Provencal, Langue d'Oc, etc... or Italic would be Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc... Otherwise, all else is correct.
Reply
#5
Hi Chris,

I'm not an expert in Chinese, but I did get my information from the Wikipedia:

Wikipedia Wrote:There is much controversy around the terminology used to describe the subdivisions of Chinese, with some preferring to call Chinese a language and its subdivisions dialects, and others preferring to call Chinese a language family and its subdivisions languages.

Whatever side of the controversy is correct is irrelevant to my point. You are not communicating with me in Americaic - you are communicating with me in English, which is itself an umbrella for many different dialects.....yours probably being the Southwestern dialect. I'm sure you would have no problem communicating with someone from Long Island, Boston or Australia.

Dialect doesn't mean language. Dialect is a branch of a language with its own little peculiarities. Do you know how many dialects of modern vernacular Aramaic I can speak and read and write without so much as thinking about it? (not to mention several ancient dialects.)

Jesus did the same thing. He communicated with people from Galilee, Samaria, Syria and Judea. Do you realize how many different dialects he would have had to switch to, to have communicated with all those people? Just because the people recognized Shimun Keepa's accent, and were able to tell that he was a Galilean too, doesn't mean they didn't understand what he was saying....or vice-versa.

Dialects are part of the same language, and Syriac is no more different from Galilean (that we have records of) than Long Island is to Tennessee, or Canadian is to Australian.

And the point remains - If Jesus was born and raised in a Mandarin-speaking area of China, a New Testament that recorded His words in the Cantonese dialect would be of exponentially greater worth than one that recorded his Mandarin words in English.....a language from a completely different family with a completely different alphabet and a completely different grammar and a completely different idiom.


Even if Jesus spoke an Aramaic dialect other than the Syriac dialect (which is an unproven point, but let's give them that for the sake of argument), a Syriac dialect NT would be exponentially, infinitely (is there a stronger word?) closer to His original meaning and idiom than a Greek, Swahili or Eskimo translation would be.

At best, even if we were to submit that it was the original, the Greek NT is a mere translation of a message delivered in a completely foreign tongue not intelligible in any way, shape or form to any branch of the Indo-European family.

To all who have a taste for having lost the original meaning and idiom of the Gospel - I say, bon appetit! Just hit that back button on your browser.

Leave the rest of us to discover what Shimun Keepa really meant in Acts 2:24......while the Greek Primacists can keep scratching their heads trying to come up with a good explanation out how their texts came to read "pains" instead of "cords", if they weren't translated from a written Aramaic source that means both.....which had the same reading as the Peshitta does........coincidentally, of course, just coincidentally.....like all the other examples we've posted here.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
Quote:Leave the rest of us to discover what Shimun Keepa really meant in Acts 2:24......while the Greek Primacists can keep scratching their heads trying to come up with a good explanation out how their texts came to read "pains" instead of "cords", if they weren't translated from a written Aramaic source that means both.....which had the same reading as the Peshitta does........coincidentally, of course, just coincidentally.....like all the other examples we've posted here.

Now Paul, you keep hitting on this particular section of Acts as if this is your particular jewel against all other languages. Ok, let's help Paul sort this out just like we did with the LXX here.

Your question as to why the syriac in this section is better (as if the particular language made more difference than the truth itself), than the greek, here is the answer:

They had a better greek or old latin copy to translate from or they made a correction when they translated it into the syriac.


I know I know, this goes against the grain of everything posted here by you and others on the originality that you theorize, but there is no other way to surmize it. Let's look at an example:

Go to the end of chapter 2 and let's look at Paul's translation and the greek translation. Here's Paul's as best as I can get it:

47 And they were praising GOD whilst finding favor before all the people, and our Lord would add everyday, amongst the congregation, those who lived. Or as Murdock put it, "became alive."

I think that is as best as I can get to do justice to Paul's interlinear. Ok here is a standard form of the greek in that same chapter:

(ASV) praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added {1} to them day by day those that {2} were saved.

{1) Gr together 2) Or were being saved}

Let's have an interlinear form to compare:

(IGNT) ainountev ton {PRAISING} yeon {GOD,} kai {AND} econtev {HAVING} carin {FAVOUR} prov {WITH} olon {WHOLE} ton {THE} laon {PEOPLE;} o {AND} de {THE} kuriov {LORD} prosetiyei {ADDED} touv {THOSE WHO} swzomenouv kay {WERE BEING SAVED} hmeran {DAILY} th {TO THE} ekklhsia {ASSEMBLY.}

Here's another literal translation of the text:

(YLT) praising God, and having favour with all the people, and the Lord was adding those being saved every day to the assembly.


Ok, here is the old testament prophecy that this proceeds from (I'm using mutiple translations to try and ensure the understanding is given correctly here):

32 (AV) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

32 (ASV) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and {1} among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call. {1) Or in the remnant whom etc}

32 (Darby) And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as Jehovah hath said, and for the residue whom Jehovah shall call.

32 (Douay) And it shall come to pass, that every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved: for in Mount Sion, and in Jerusalem shall be salvation, as the Lord hath said, and in the residue whom the Lord shall call.

32 (IGNT)

32 (JPS) (3-5) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as the LORD hath said, and among the remnant those whom the LORD shall call.

32 (Lamsa) And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD has said to the remnant whom the LORD has called.

32 (Murdoch)

32 (NKJV) And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.

32 (Rotherham) And it shall come to pass, whosoever, shall call on the name of Yahweh, shall be delivered, ???For in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, shall be a delivered remnant, just as Yahweh hath said, and among the survivors, whom Yahweh doth call.

32 (RSV) And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

32 (RWebster) And it shall come to pass, that whoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

32 (YLT) And it hath come to pass, Every one who calleth in the name of Jehovah is delivered, For in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there is an escape, As Jehovah hath said, And among the remnants whom Jehovah is calling!

What's being conveyed in the new testament is the action of something happening, the deliverance, or those persons being saved from something, not just the after effect but the ongoing fulfillment. The prophecy keeps being actively fulfilled. The syriac changes the whole meaning here into something else whereas the greek witnesses to the old testament prophecy, as we just seen, and rightly divides the Word for you.

See, it is very easy to find more of these between the two languages as one goes comparing between both covenants.

So what just happened here? I did the same thing that Paul did in comparison, but I supplied an answer to this that contained a more sensible approach to the reasonings why, rather than hastily assume that one particular language was more original than the other. If anything, the particular manuscript that was used in the translation of this into syriac was cleaner, but as we see, neither of the languages are without their faults. The Word will witness to itself though, if you let it.

How about one where both of them got it wrong?

Same book, chapter 1 verse 2. Here is Paul's translation:

Up until that day in which He wast taken up, after He had commanded the Apostles, those whom He chose by The Spirit of Holiness.

Ok here is a greek translation of that verse:

(ASV) until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

All of the greek translations, and the syriac, give this sense that Jesus picked His Apostles "by The Holy Spirit" or through, when it fact none of the texts witness to this particular action of His that it says.

If you go further in the text, it witnesses to a day, that day, when "He was taken up by The Holy Spirit," in the form of a cloud, but it does not show a particular place where He pointed out ones and chose them by The Spirit (whatever that is suppose to mean). Again, the Word will witness to itself if you let it.

The greek is flexible here, but in reality, both languages really have the understanding of this particular section skewered, whilst they both point to a particular "day" that something happened in this section.

Both camps argue over originality when it fact it should be approached with a desire to have the truth correctly handed out to HIS people, but no, that is not really the desire by these groups that handle GOD's word.

There are more in these first few chapters of Acts, I just pointed out some quick stuff here.

So Paul, there is your answer to this text you keep quoting as your jewel of the Nile. I really wish you would not claim originality here in this particular section of the new testament, it is not a good choice.
Reply
#7
Dave Wrote:Your question as to why the syriac in this section is better (as if the particular language made more difference than the truth itself), than the greek, here is the answer:

Dave, how would you know what the "truth itself" was if you were looking at the Greek?

Did Shimun Keepa make this speech in front of his Jewish audience in Greek?

Are you insane?

I hate to have to do this...take your time with your answer:

Dave Wrote:They had a better greek or old latin copy to translate from...

And where is this better greek or latin copy? Are you admitting that there were better "greek or latin" manuscripts around - and that you no longer have the original word of God, Dave?

Dave Wrote:...or they made a correction when they translated it into the syriac.

Really? Do you have any evidence of this to support your view? Or are we to simply take your word for it.....is "she" speaking to you again, Dave?

The rest of your post is bunk, as it all rests on these two untenable and unproven guesses you made in your desperation.

And Dave, if you took an entry-level course in Semitic linguistics (any Semitic language), you would know the idiom "to make live" is the Semitic way of saying "save." And the Peshitta reading "day by day" does, indeed, denote a continual action. But the Greek loses the idiom of "make alive" and "save", now doesn't it? That's the sense used in the OT to which you hark back.

Are you tired of Acts 2:24 - do you want to discuss a more extensive example? I'm not continuously harping about Acts 2:24 because I have nothing else - I have plenty of examples that are far more damning to your various Greek textual families. Dave, Acts 2:24 is being brought up continuously to you because you won't even understand the other examples with your current level of knowledge. Do you understand?

Dave, bas! (Aramaic for "stop!")
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#8
Paul, I think your placing me in a particular camp here, one with the greek primacy guys, but really that is incorrect. For me, I could care less where the truth is written down, or in what language, and I have no affiliation with them and their arguments, nor your language camp, I care for only a translation to compare. You, on the other hand, wish to maintain that it had to come down in a particular form. That we have to have had this in one language or the other. I do hold that the closeness to the original came down in the greek, since GOD has steadily used it over the ages, and continues to witness to it. That is something that I recognize, so I will give the greek preference in that regard, by His direction and example.

But no, attempting to hold some sort of primacy name over me is really futile, I don't care about such things, hence why I would make such statements to you.


Quote:Did Shimun Keepa make this speech in front of his Jewish audience in Greek?


Would I be careless enough to say yes to that? No. But don't run with that against me yet, because your unable to say what language they were placed in to be passed down unto us either when Luke collected them or took notes, neither am I. Your just as out there running around in left field as I am in right field when it comes to that issue, although you claim this text by culturistic inheritance or bias, whichever one may make out of it. But I will look at both the languages and get closer to the truth instead of adhering to just one. I'm not talking something new here, you've seen me do this continually.


Quote:And where is this better greek or latin copy? Are you admitting that there were better "greek or latin" manuscripts around - and that you no longer have the original word of God, Dave?

Jesus is The original Word of GOD, believe me, I always have Him with me.

And where is your original at Paul? This syriac language evolved around the 3rd century (I'll not say late to keep you happy here), as you proved me correct. So where is your original print aramaic text manuscript? There is none is there? The answer is no.

Do you have that original first century print form aramaic text hiding from us somewhere Paul? I didn't think so. What about all those copies translated from the greek into syriac that we keep finding at various points? You know, the old syriac, Harklean, etc. Shoot what about your own witness to this you posted here:

Quote:"In this province [Palestine] there are some people who know both Greek and Syriac, but others know only one or the other. The bishop may know Syriac, but never uses it. He always speaks in Greek, and has a presbyter beside him who translates the Greek into Syriac, so that everyone can understand what he means. Similarly, the lessons read in church have to be read in Greek, but there is always someone in attendance to translate into Syriac so that the people can understand."

I don't know if your paying attention to what you post at times. That is one of the oldest reports found, in syriac nontheless, and in it they are saying that they always translate from greek into syriac? Heh, that was from you even Paul.

Which camp has the oldest copies here Paul? What age is assigned to the oldest copies? Etc, etc. You know the answers to these things.

Quote:you would know the idiom "to make live" is the Semitic way of saying "save." And the Peshitta reading "day by day" does, indeed, denote a continual action. But the Greek loses the idiom of "make alive" and "save", now doesn't it? That's the sense used in the OT to which you hark back.


Whenever you are attempting to "debunk" someone, do you always head to idioms and theory Paul? It always seems to be your style. In this, your claiming that according to the semetic thought and idiom, that the OT has connotations of rebirth, and the syriac has the correct perspective. If you noticed I gave multiple translations, even one from the Jewish perspective to ensure that I gave the correct intention and description here, and none of them gave any notes whatsoever in this regard that you claim, nor did they change the wording or add any additional clarification to this to enhance the readers insight of any additional thought patterns in the text. Shoot, Nicodemas knew nothing of what Jesus was telling him when he said that he must be born anew.

The sense of deliverance from something is the main thought placed out there from the OT, as all of the translations adhere to. If it has a secondary thought of rebirth, as you claim and as the syriac tends to denote, than what I would do is this:

And The Lord added daily unto the assembly, those who were being saved alive.

Pretty neat how the syriac and the greek go together to help the english.

But no, no, no, this will never do here. We cannot have two languages work together, I have to choose one or the other, right Paul? Well, maybe you do, not me.

But in reality, that is not the main sense in the OT, as all of the translators will prove.


The thought pattern in the syriac is the after effect, hence your use of lived in the past tense within your translation Paul, or as murdock says, became alive. Both of these are stating it in the past tense. "Those who became alive." Or those who lived. Past tense.

The greek states it as an ongoing event, not in the past tense,..those who were being saved. It is one complete word in the greek, so again, I would say that whoever translated this into syriac enhanced an additional thought pattern in the text, or made a change on their own, and they dropped the sense of being delivered/saved, of which the OT denotes, as formerly posted. And I don't see how the greek looses the thought of being saved at all, as you said, since it goes out of it's way to say that. It may loose the thought of a rebirth if it is there, but again, as we seen, the translators did not place that out there. Even a translation of the OT peshitta from Lamsa does not say that. He used the word delivered also.

I know, I know, you keep trying to put me down by saying that I'm not educated in a semitic language, your so much better than me, my current level of language is questionable, and you call me a fool and other little childish names, blah, blah, blah,...your just hurting me so bad here Paul, heh.
Reply
#9
Quote:The rest of your post is bunk, as it all rests on these two untenable and unproven guesses you made in your desperation.


Really? An act of desperation on my part huh? Unprovable?

Then show me in the scriptures where He went about doing this act of "choosing by The Holy Spirit?!" What is that suppose to mean anyways Paul? Go ahead and enlighten me here.

Where is the documented action of this particular event of His that the text points to if it is to mean that?

There is none Paul.


That's why the text should say:

2 Until that day upon which He wast taken up, by The Holy Spirit, after He had given commandments unto those Apostles, whom He had chosen,

That is how it is suppose to be and the very proof of this is in verse 9:

9 And when He had said these things, as they beheld, He wast lifted up, and a cloud received Him, and He wast hidden from their eyes.

Right there is the text addressing what had happened. So no, I'm not anywhere in desperation here about it, the text is available to prove it.

But yea, go ahead and find a text somewhere that describes this "choosing by/through The Holy Spirit" and I'll shut up about it.

Good luck.
Reply
#10
Dave,

The presbyters in Palestine in the 3rd century were Greeks, part of the Greek church and they were heading the local Semitic church there. That's where you get the "Christian Palestinian Aramaic" dialect - a mixture of Greek and Aramaic, and the language of the books you sent me.

Of course when the Greek Church Presbyters were preaching to the local people, they had to translate to Syriac. The same things happens today in "Palestine" - the language of the Greek Orthodox Church is (obviously) Greek, their liturgy is in Greek, their scriptures are in Greek - but they translate into Arabic for the people (the Palestinians no longer speak Aramaic, even the Christian ones speak Arabic today.)

Remember that this is after the Jews were dispersed and Jerusalem destroyed in 70 AD. The Greek church took over in Palestine and continues to be the dominant church among the Palestinians to this very day. That was the action of the Byzantine empire.

I fully realized what I posted. I didn't post to try and convince you that Palestinian Christians were Aramaic-based in their church - they weren't because they lived under the Byzantine empire where the Greek church was the dominant church before and especially after Constantine.

I posted that so that you would know that even after Meshikha's resurrection, and even after the Jew's dispersion and eviction from the Holy Land - the gentile Christians there still spoke in the "Syriac" you didn't think existed in that area.

And like I proved to you, there are Syriac inscription in Jerusalem in the first century. Syriac existed as a Palestinian dialect before and after the time of Meshikha.

And no, I do not use the Greek as a primary source. The Greek text is my best friend, because it shows internal signs of being translated from an Aramaic source.....with the same readings as the Peshitta. That's how all these examples we have here came about. The Greek text makes my case for me better than I ever could.

I lament, not celebrate, the fact that you do not know these languages enough to fully appreciate these examples. I wish you did. Those who do on this forum know how powerfully convincing these arguments are.

And this has nothing to do with cultural pride. Someone who is racist does not marry a Roman Catholic German/Irish/Shawnee Indian girl.

If Meshikha was a Greek and preached His Gospel in Greel - I'd be a Greek Primacist. If He were a Latin, I'd be a Latin Primacist. If he were a Zimbabwean, I'd be a Zimbabwean Primacist.

But He was a Jew, an Aramaic-speaking Jew. Therefore, I am an Aramaic Primacist. By accident of birth, I happen to speak a modern dialect of this language and by accident of church affiliation I happen to have studied the ancient version from my youth. Don't worry - in a generation or two we'll be all gone and won't be a thorn in your side anymore. You will then only have the Greek Messiah to study, but in the meantime leave me in peace to get this word out while we are still here and still understand this language.

If that makes me culturally biased in your eyes, that's fine with me. Keep in mind I'm not a Jew, I am a Gentile like yourself......and Aramaic is a Gentile language first and foremost.

Compare the Greek and Aramaic, by all means use both if that makes you feel more fulfilled. Nobody is telling you not to study the Greek-based versions. If you take the time to bother to learn the language your Saviour used, you will get to the same place that others who didn't know it got to. Ask Larry or Rev. Bauscher, they were at one point where you are.....with the difference, of course, that they took the time to learn the lanuage their Saviour used to get closer to His word.

If that's at all important to you, do it. If you are content with forever comparing the King James to Murdoch, Lamsa or the Interlinear here.....that's fine too. Don't bother to learn Aramaic, or Greek for that matter. But you will never understand these examples unless you do and this is the wrong place for you....for you will have no appreciation for our discoveries....let alone have anything beneficial to add except for the rare instance that an inquiry of yours will actually lead to another discovery, like who it was who actually named Jesus.

The Greek texts created a contradiction - and because of your hard head we uncovered solid evidence that the mistake crept in because of the Greek mistranslation of an Aramaic gender possessive form that was the same for both masculine and feminine. That was your inadvertant discovery.

Since then you've done nothing but annoy us.....which again makes me wonder why you are here.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#11
Paul,

You and I are on two different planes buddy. And I wish that I was able to relate some of those things that are in His word, that you can only see spiritually, but I'm unable to do that. For as multiple that our Lord is, and the amount of multitasking that He can do instantaneously, you and others are caught up in the literal understandings only.

All that The Apostle Paul wrote about pertaining to the church came from the Old Testament. He was able to see it because of The Spirit. That glorious unveiling of the word past the written letters is an amazing thing for all of us, when your allowed to experience it.

There was a time that I felt and thought that the new testament had to have originated from the syriac, but the more that I would hold to that idea the less that I was receiving from Him. I want to stay where He puts me so that I can receive His blessings on a daily basis. Besides, if one of us is creeping to an area that He doesn't approve, He will lead us back to the direction that He wants for us to take, and that is what He did with me. He called back to rememberance what He showed me at first and gave me a renewed hunger for His word, and it just happened to be in the greek.

But anyways, we are on two different planes here. It matters not to Father what educational aspects I may have since it takes HIS faith to activate anything for HIS people. Learning how to work with HIM that way is the hardest language to learn since it is allowing another to direct your actions, and at some point you can make a big mistake if your not careful. And I suppose that sort of desire is not something that you and any one person that frequents this place even has in mind, or remotely knows anything about.

But for the most part, I want to see a finished product of this, but I have had to put up with the little comments towards this primacy issue, and so has GOD. But I think that with several people working on this now, a finalized product that is true will be realised.

I do think that you do the translation process a big justice Paul, and I hope that you will be able to continue with what you started here.
Reply
#12
I'll tell you what Paul, this work of mine is going faster than I thought, and I would rather have something to continue on, so I'll put you in my prayers. You've been lacking inspiration and I need the rest of acts onward done. I will check out Kiraz's work, but the more I'm working with the material that you have done Paul, the better I like it.
Reply
#13
Quote:...you and others are caught up in the literal understandings only.

Dave,

With a literal understanding comes more robust spiritual understanding. Would you care for me to step outside of my ultra-literalist soapbox and give you an example of a spiritual understanding that you could never get from the Greek no matter how hard you tried?

Try me, please.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
Well Paul, I was offering to shut-up on here and pray for you so that you may have a renewed interest and desire to begin the work again, instead of me arguing with you all (and you may wish to capitalize on that instead of testing the waters further here),........but I would be interested with any insight you may have.
Reply
#15
Shalma lukhon,

Dave Wrote:
Quote:What's being conveyed in the new testament is the action of something happening, the deliverance, or those persons being saved from something, not just the after effect but the ongoing fulfillment. The prophecy keeps being actively fulfilled. The syriac changes the whole meaning here into something else whereas the greek witnesses to the old testament prophecy, as we just seen, and rightly divides the Word for you.

I can assure you Dave, for myself, as a person formally trained in rabbinic schools from birth through high school, that for western Christians the concept of "saved" and "salvation" is foreign to the ears of Jews. That???s why, to this day, Jews scratch their heads trying to figure out what Christians mean by "save, saved and salvation". The term "life" is far more prevalent, both idiomatically and theologically.

I was pleasantly surprised when I noticed almost every instance of "save" in the NT was correctly rendered "life" in the Aramaic of the Peshitta, since this reflects a proper understanding of the Jewish thought pattern surrounding the subject.

To this day, Jews look forward to what is called "mekhaye Hamaytim" [the becoming alive of the dead] and "Khaye olam" [the everlasting life]

Not that Hebrew or Aramaic lack words which mean Save, deliver or salvation, for we know that words exist such as Hoshana, Purqana, Paruqa and the like.

The expression of these concepts, however, have been and continue to be formatted [in Judaism and Aramaic Christianity] using the root "khay" [life] rather than what you and western Christianity might expect.

The Peshitta is right on in this case!

be well,

Dean
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)