Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Primacy proof example
#1
Shlama All,

Here is another proof of Peshitta primacy taken from my interlinear and Plain English translation from Acts 17:27:

"So that they would be seeking and inquiring* after God; and they may find him by his creation, because also he is not far from everyone of us."
* Greek mss. have, ???To seek the Lord, if they may feel him and find though, indeed, He is not far from each one of us.???
You need the Habbakuk font from this web site installed on your computer to view the Hebrew font used.OLBGRK font is used for Greek, which is also on this web site.
Here is ???to inquire??? in Dead Sea Scroll Aramaic: .... }ybq(m-???Maqveen???.
Here is ???to feel???,???touch??? in Dead Sea Scroll Aramaic:}ybrqm-???Maqreveen???.

I estimate 75% letter correlation between these two Aramaic words, with 4 of 6 corresponding letters identical and the other pairs (q(,rq) sharing a q-(Qop) & other certain dyslexic similarities.

Greek for ???they may inquire??? is akribhseian or exezhthsousin or exereunhseian. None of these is close to qhlafhseian ?????? they may feel???.I suppose the 1st is the more similar of the three, with about 54% letter correlation between the two Greek words.

This means that it is very unlikely that a translator translated the Greek reading into Aramaic; it is much more likely that the reverse happened. There are hundreds of examples like this in the NT. It only works going from Aramaic to Greek. I can find hardly any cases which support Greek primacy over Aramaic primacy. Practically all the variant Greek readings are far more similar in Aramaic and similar to The Peshitta reading in Aramaic form than the same readings are in Greek form. And The Peshitta has practically no variant readings in any of the places where the Greek reading differs from it and where Greek variant readings occur. But if Greek primacy be true, "My Brethren, these things ought not so to be." (James 3:10)

Dave Bauscher
Reply
#2
Dave, I'm not able to view your Dead Sea Scrolls font. Do I have to download a special font code?

Thanks,

Otto
Reply
#3
Hello Otto,

Peshitta.org has the font to download, but it is not listed with the other fonts. It is called "pesher habbakuk" . Jack Kilmon has it on his ancient fonts web site. Download it and the DSS script font available and install them. I hope that works. The Greek font is OLBGRK available with Online Bible Greek modules. Do a search for it; it seems Paul has uploaded these fonts to the web site but has not listed them on the fonts screen. They do work for me when I use them on posts.

Blessings,

Dave
Reply
#4
Hey Otto,
Jack Kilmon's site is here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.historian.net/">http://www.historian.net/</a><!-- m -->
I hope this helps.
Reply
#5
Acts 1:19
19.???And this is known to all those who live in Jerusalem, and so that field is called in the language of the region, ???Haqel Dama??? *, which is, in its translation, ???Field of Blood???.???
* This verse in Greek has the Aramaic name ???Akeldama??? , ???Akeldama??? transliterated, and says that ???In their language was called Akeldama , which is ???Field of blood???. Thayer???s Greek English Lexicon has this entry for akeldama :
184 Akeldama Akeldama ak-el-dam-ah??? of Aramaic origin, corresponding to 02506 and 01818 amd lqx;
n pr loc AV-Aceldama 1; 1
Aceldama =" Field of Blood"
So The Greek NT declares the language of the Jews in Jerusalem to have been Aramaic. Notice it says ???Their language???, not ???Their languages???. Only one language is mentioned as belonging to the region, and akeldama, ???Akeldama???, is plainly an Aramaic name of two words :lqx ??????Haqel???-???Field??? & amd-???Dama???- ???Blood???. So here the Greek NT says that the Jews of Jerusalem spoke Aramaic and contradicts the notion that they also spoke Greek; it also transliterates Aramaic here and elsewhere and then translates its meaning into Greek for a Greek audience. Luke came from Syria and probably wrote in his native Syrian Aramaic, which explains the translation of the Aramaic of Israel into Syrian Aramaic in this verse (???Field of Blood???) and in Acts 4:36, where BarNaba???s name (Israeli Aramaic) is defined in a Syrian Aramaic dialect.

Acts 2:20
20."The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood until the great and awesome day of THE LORD JEHOVAH will come."

The Greek mss. have epifanh ??? ???notable???, ???manifest???
where The Peshitta has )lyxd -???D???khyla???-???Awesome???.
???Notable??? would be .... )(ydy
or ........................ )ylgd in Aramaic.These are very similar;
The first two Aramaic words have about 75-80% letter correlation (4 of 5 letters are very similar)
not so in Greek: epifanh ??? ???notable???;
....................Foberon ??????fearful???
The Greek pair have 0% letter similarity.
Can we really believe The great day of Jehovah would be merely ???notable???? I cannot.
???Awesome??? it will be; ???Notable??? is a flimsy and lame substitute which grossly misses the point.




Acts 3:20
20. "And he shall send to you The One who was prepared * for you, Yeshua The Messiah."

* The Textus Receptus Greek (KJV Greek) text has ???Who was preached???; coincidentally , the Aramaic
by+md??????Who was prepared,appointed??? is very similar to b+md (???Who informed???) &
byb+d (???Who was made known,published???) . All other Greek mss. agree with The Peshitta reading. It looks here like The Textus Receptus represents an alternate Greek translation of The Peshitta Aramaic , which appears also to be the case in other places of The NT.
The two matched Aramaic readings have about 75% similarity.
The Greek readings are :
prokeceirismenon-"was appointed"
prokekhrugmenon -???was preached???

The Greek readings are also about 75% similar. The factor that decidedly supports Peshitta primacy in this example is that it is the Greek that has both readings, not The Peshitta. As in so many other examples, the Greek exhibits evidence of being a translation from The Peshitta in its variant readings. The Peshitta shows practically no variant readings corresponding to two or three similar Greek words; in fact, The Peshitta NT has practically no variant readings at all!

Acts 3:24

24. ???But God raised him and he destroyed the destructions of Sheol because it was not possible for him to be held captive in Sheol."

- ???He destroyed the destructions of Sheol??? is one possible translation; others are ???He loosed the cords of Sheol???,
???He destroyed the pains of Sheol???, ???He loosed the cords of the grave???, ???He has loosed the travail of Sheol.???
I have chosen the first as it presents the poetic paradox which is so powerfully employed in Scripture to highlight the power of God: He leads captivity captive, tells the poor they are rich, the rich are poor, the high are low and the lowly exalted, and finally kills death, casting death and Sheol into a Lake of Fire. Whichever translation is preferred, the Apostle Peter is declaring that Sheol has been defanged- neutralized & rendered impotent by The Messiah???s death and
resurrection. All Greek mss but codex D have ??? ???Lusav tav wdinav tou yanatou ??? ??? ???He loosed the pains of death???. Codex D , which usually seems to follow The Peshitta more closely, has ???Lusav tav wdinav tou adou ??? ??? ???He loosed the pains of Hades???.
???Hades??? is the Greek cognate for the Hebrew-Aramaic ???Sheol???. The Greeks sometimes translated the Hebrew ???Sheol??? with ???Yanatov???- ???Death???. (See 2 Sam. 22:6 Greek LXX and Hebrew, Prov. 23:14) . Both Greek readings (Hades & Death) represent The LXX translation words used for The Hebrew ???Sheol???, which is almost identical to the Aramaic spelling of ???Sheol???.The Hebrew of that verse (2 Sam. 22:6) has the phrase lwas ylbx ??????Khebli Sheol??? , where The Peshitta OT has the same phrase found here in Acts 2:24- lwys hylbx , translated, ???The pangs of Sheol??? by George Lamsa. atwmd hylbx is also found in that version of 2 Sam. 22:5 , which he translated ???Pangs of death???. The same text is repeated in Psalms 18:4,5 & 116:3 (115:3 in Peshitta) using the same Aramaic words in The Peshitta and the same translation in Lamsa.
Reply
#6
Acts 7:36

36.This is he who sent them out when he did signs and wonders and mighty works in the land of Egypt and at The Sea of Reeds* and in the wilderness 40 years.
*(???The Sea of Reeds??? is ???Yamma D??? Suph??? or ???Yamma Suph??? in Aramaic, very similar to the Hebrew of Exodus ???Yam Suph???. ???The Red Sea??? is a mistranslation in Greek taken from the LXX which has it wrong consistently in the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible never mentions a ???Red Sea???, only ???The Sea of Reeds???. See Hebrews 11:29 ) This verse and Hebrews 11:29 is strong support for Peshitta primacy and Divine inspiration and opposition to Greek primacy and inspiration. The Peshitta did not get this reading from Greek, though the Greek LXX consistently translated ???Yam Suph???-(???Sea of Reeds???) as eruyra yalassh-(eruthros Thalassay-Red Sea), and the Greek NT seems to have followed suit here and in Heb. 11:29.
SImply put, the LXX mistranslated the Hebrew "Suph"-"Reeds,flags" (See Exodus 2:3,5) as "eruthros"-"Red" and the Greek NT translated the Peshitta's Aramaic "Suph" as "eruthros"-"Red" according to the LXX precedent. The Peshitta reading "Suph" -"reeds" would not have come from "eruthros"-"Red".

Dave
Reply
#7
Acts 9:36

36.There was a female disciple in Joppa, whose name was Tabitha. She was rich in good works and in the charity which she was doing.
* Greek has ???tabiya h diermhneuomenh legetai dorkav???- ???Tabitha, which, being translated, means Dorcas (a gazelle).??? dorkav -???Dorkas??? occurs twice in this chapter in the Greek texts, which according to the Greek of this verse, is a Greek translation of an Aramaic word: 5000 Tabiya Tabitha tab-ee-thah??? of Aramaic origin, cf 06646 atybj; ; n pr f AV-Tabitha 2; 2 Tabitha =" female gazelle" ??? (1) the name of the woman that Peter raised from the dead . -(Thayers Greek-English Lexicon). Is it not strange that the Greek text has the Aramaic ???Tabitha??? transliterated in Greek letters and then states ???which being translated means Dorcas???? We do not find this phenomenon in The Peshitta, that is, we do not find Greek words transliterated into Aramaic letters and then translated into Aramaic words. The Greek NT has this phenomenon recorded at least six times in The Gospels and in Acts. Why in the name of Sam Hill would Luke have written this in Greek originally if the persons , language and culture involved were Aramaean? And why would we have a Greek translation of a name if the original was Greek? And why would we have a Greek translation of a person???s name at all , unless it were a highly significant name with a highly significant meaning, like that of Meshikha-???Christ??? or ???Kaypha??? ??? ???Peter????
The fact that the Greek texts have both ???Tabitha??? and ???Dorkas??? in this passage with the statement ,???this is translated into [Greek] Dorkas??? is a giveaway of the fact that the Greek text is not the original language but a translation language of a Semitic original (probably Aramaic). This writer believes the Greek translation of ???Tabitha??? was a faux pas; names are hardly ever to be translated into the target language, but simply transliterated in their original form. The fact that this one was transliterated and translated into Greek twice in this chapter testifies powerfully to the Greek as a translation of an Aramaic original. See v. 39 also.

Dave
Reply
#8
I got the fonts DSSScribal.ttf and Habbakuk.ttf from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.historian.net/files.htm">http://www.historian.net/files.htm</a><!-- m --> and after opening them they worked!

Thanks...

Otto
Reply
#9
That's great Otto.I have much more to show demonstrating Peshitta primacy.

Dave
Reply
#10
Is an Armaic Primacy a proof of originality of the Word of God?

The oldest Aramaic Khabouris does not have 5 Western books namely 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. I presume either Khabuoris was written earlier than those 5 books or perhaps the compiler rejected those 5 books as authentic. If those 5 books were rejected, then the compiler is questionable as whether he is a true believer or a heretic.

Book of Revelation is believed to be penned around 96AD, why the Eastern Peshitta do not have the Book of Revelation that Western version has?

Why the name of God is called Alaha in Aramaic and not "El" as written in the original Aramaic?

Evidence of change in Aramaic Peshitta

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Matthew 27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elijah.

Mark was recording the phrase in Aramaic while Matthew was recording it in Aramaic too. The name of God is "El" and not Alaha in Aramaic because if it was so then, how could the bystanders said this man called for Eli-jah???

So which Peshitta is using "El" in Aramaic for the name of the Holy God?
Reply
#11
October 18, 2008

Dear Positron,

I had trouble following your logic.

Could you please mention the specific questionable books and versus that have Alaha when you believe they should have El?

Thanks,

Otto
Reply
#12
ograabe Wrote:October 18, 2008

Dear Positron,

I had trouble following your logic.

Could you please mention the specific questionable books and versus that have Alaha when you believe they should have El?

Thanks,

Otto


Matthew 27:46 - ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?? (Western)
Matthew 27:46 - ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?? (Khabouris)
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jeshu cried with a high voice, Aloha ! Aloha ! why hast thou forsaken me ? [IL ! IL ! lamono shabakth??ni !] - Etheridge
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice and said: O God, O God; why hast thou forsaken me ? - Murdock


Matthew 27:47 - ?????????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??
Matthew 27:47 - ?????????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??
Matthew 27:47 But certain of them who stood there, when they heard, said, This hath cried unto Ilio.
Matthew 27:47 And some of them that stood there, when they heard [it], said:He calleth for Elijah.


Can you see that there is no connection or similarity in pronunciation by calling Aloha and Ilio ???
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jeshu cried with a high voice, Aloha ! Aloha ! why hast thou forsaken me ? [IL ! IL ! lamono shabakth??ni !] - Etheridge
Matthew 27:47 But certain of them who stood there, when they heard, said, This hath cried unto Ilio.
Question: Why it is Aloha in Aramaic and not "El' stated in Textus Receptus?

Can you see the connection or similarity of "EL" and EL-ijah in KJV or Greek Textus Receptus? Why Aramaic Translators use Aloha and not El?

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (KJV)
Matthew 27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.

I presume that Greek Textus Receptus is better and more original to the autograph in this case because original words in Aramaic was retained while Aramaic Peshitta primacy has loose translation to "God" or Aloha which does not seen to have association with God of Abraham who is known as Elohim.

So why the words Aloha or Alaha is used in Aramaic Translation?
Reply
#13
shlomo Positron,

positron Wrote:Matthew 27:46 - ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?? (Western)
Matthew 27:46 - ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?? (Khabouris)
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jeshu cried with a high voice, Aloha ! Aloha ! why hast thou forsaken me ? [IL ! IL ! lamono shabakth??ni !] - Etheridge
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice and said: O God, O God; why hast thou forsaken me ? - Murdock

Question: Why it is Aloha in Aramaic and not "El' stated in Textus Receptus?

Matthew says => "eel eel lmana shbaqtan(y)" and not "Aloha ! Aloha !", so in this case Etheridge mis-transcribed and Murdock is closer to the actual meaning.

In order to make these kinds of blanket statement, you'll first need to learn how to read Aramaic and not depend on other people's translations or transcription as they are not always accurate.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#14
Quote:Matthew says => "eel eel lmana shbaqtan(y)" and not "Aloha ! Aloha !", so in this case Etheridge mis-transcribed and Murdock is closer to the actual meaning.

In order to make these kinds of blanket statement, you'll first need to learn how to read Aramaic and not depend on other people's translations or transcription as they are not always accurate.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun

Thanks for your kind clarification. I was disheartened to learn that Aloha is the same as "el" from Etheridge Translation. I do not read Aramaic so I have to depend on the best Aramaic to English Translation. I need it for serious study purposes. So which Aramaic Translations is the best official translation?

And is the name MarkYah and Aloha the same meaning in Aramaic?

Thanks again.

Shalom.
Reply
#15
shlomo Positron,

positron Wrote:Thanks for your kind clarification. I was disheartened to learn that Aloha is the same as "el" from Etheridge Translation. I do not read Aramaic so I have to depend on the best Aramaic to English Translation. I need it for serious study purposes. So which Aramaic Translations is the best official translation?

The one here on Peshitta.org of Paul Younan

positron Wrote:And is the name MarkYah and Aloha the same meaning in Aramaic?

Alaha => God <= Is the word for God in the general sense, which can also be used to refer to the One God
Marya => Lord YHWH <= In Aramaic we don't say YHWH, as a sign of respect. (mar=Lord and ya = YHWH (There was a thread on this forum dealing with this, please look at that thread.)

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)