Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"POLITARXAS'' could be big blow for Aramaic Primacy in Acts
#1
In Greek NT of Acts 17:6,8 Luke uses a word that is found only in this context in the entire New Testament. It is a Greek title for the "rulers" in Thessalonikka, which is "POLITARXAS." For centuries scholars could not figure out Luke's source for using this particular word because there was no record of any official person in leadership that was assigned this exact title. Therefore you had many New Testament skeptics that used this text to cast doubt on either the authenticity of Luke or the reliability of the New Testament. But "lo" and behold in the last century , or 19th century, an archaeological excavation or "dig" in that area discovered some pieces of stone or marble that included an inscription with this very title. You can see this and read some of the backround of this story at:

<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.LarryOverton.com">http://www.LarryOverton.com</a><!-- w -->

Click at "Berean Fact Sheet" and then scroll down to No.15 - "Politarchs of Thessalonicca." Scroll down a little further and you will see the full inscription in Greek. But there is no photo of the original stone. "Politarxas" is the very first word of the inscription you will see if you can read Greek. I looked up the corresponding word for this title in the Aramaic New Testament (Acts 17:6,8) to see if this was also used exclusively in the Aramaic NT and would probably give credance to Aramaic Primacy if found only in Acts 17:6,8. The search for this word I conducted found several locations of the same Title. Acts 19:31 is just one. Observing that this word is unique for the title of an government official only in Thessalonicca it only makes sense to me that a "Greek writing" Luke would only include this in this Thessalonikkan narrative and nowhere else and, then, later on when the letter (Acts) was translated from Greek to Aramaic that the copiest, not familiar with the uniqueness of the word, would write it in several locations. A problem for Aramaic Primacy?? This needs to be considered.

I realize that this would only be one in several "battles" between Aramaic Primacy supporters and Greek Primacy supporters for the orignal language of Luke-Acts. In the back of my mind someone is telling me that this "challenge" in Acts 17 may well has been dealt with before. But I don't know. Maybe someone can help me out with this or maybe I am on to something. To me this would be both an external and internal clue for Greek Primacy for Luke-Acts. I would love to hear any "no-brainers" for Luke-Acts that would obviously support Aramaic Primacy. Hey. Just a thought! :blush

Thank you

Sincerely,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhi Mike,

"POLIT-ARCHAS" is simply a compound Greek title for "City Rulers", it is a perfect cognate to the Aramaic for those verses of "Reshe da'Mdintha" (heads of the city). I can see a Greek translator, familiar with the vernacular of Thessalonica, translating "politarchas."

I don't think this is a case either way for Greek or Aramaic primacy, because it doesn't rule out the possibility that the Greek translator of Aramaic Acts may have been either a native of Thessalonica or familiar with their dialect. In fact, the title seems to have been common throughout Macedonia from the inscriptions, so the translator may have come from any number of areas in that large geographical location.

Far more convincing to me as far as the language of Acts goes is 2:24, where the evidence is rock-solid. It's a mistranslation that could have only come from Aramaic.

+Shamasha
Reply
#3
Paul,

I thank-you for replying. Yes, after I posted my messege I did go back to the web-site I mentioned and read the full article. You are right. It may very well have been written by a Greek familiar with the dialect of that Macedonian province. We don't know. I just find it too "coincidental" that he would only include this title in this narrative in Acts 17. I will have to think on it more. To me, if this was definitely an Aramaic Primacy support, text why didn't Luke, writing in Aramaic, just transliterate the Greek word in Aramaic?? That would leave no questions.

Tks for the Acts 2:24 reference. I will go look at that and please do not feel shy in giving me any other "rock solid," "no doubt about it," Aramaic Primacy texts in Luke-Acts and don't feel rushed.


Sincerely,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#4
Tikanes Mike,

Another clue is that, let's say for argument's sake that Acts was written in Greek....with this obscure term, "politarchas", used locally in Macedonia. It would be pretty darn amazing that some dude sitting in Mesopotamia, writing in Aramaic, would have translated it perfectly as "city rulers."

Far more convincing an example for a Greek original to Acts, even more so than a transliteration (which happens, by the way, with certain units of measure or governmental offices) would be a mistranslation for "politarchas", where perhaps the Aramaic scribe confused one of the roots of the compound word, say "archas", for something else that was spelled similarly.

You never find, btw, an example of that in the Aramaic NT (an obvious mistranslation of a Greek word that could have multiple meanings.)

If Greek was the original language of the NT, then the individuals responsible for the Aramaic NT were perfect translators (something we know is not possible.)

But we do find plenty of mistakes in the Greek, like the aforementioned Acts 2:24

+Shamasha
Reply
#5
Paul,

Meilete Elleneika??

Ego eime Kalo! Efthatisto poli!

Yes, I did look at Acts 2:24. Actually I went to <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com</a><!-- w --> (Raphael's site) and downloaded his book and scrolled down to that very section (Acts 2:24 - pangs or cords?). At first I was not too convinced but then he quoted 3 passages in the Old Testament in which I think the Apostle Peter had to be aware of. Plus the end of the verse - ". . . bec. He could not be HELD by it. . ." became more convincing to me. Good job on this one. But this is just one in many verses to consider. Remember, if Acts is a Greek original so is the Gospel of Luke. They BOTH must be one or the other. I still think that this word in Acts 17:6,8 is a pretty powerful piece of evidence for Greek Primacy. It does not prove it but , I'll just say it "tilts" in this direction. Acts 2:24 I must admit tilts even more towards Aramaic Primacy expecially if those 2 passages in Psalms (18 and 116) reads just like Raphael says and is the very word that is also in Acts 2:24.

I also came across your commentary of Luke's geneology somewhere on this site where you used some strong words; something like, "I defy anyone who. . . ." but I was scanning and browsing this page very, very quickly and raced through it. I don't know your point to the geneology of Luke but perhaps that belongs to another thread. I suspect someone even started the thread somewhere in this forum.

I just believe it would have been more convincing in favor of Aramaic Primacy if the words in Acts 17:6,8 in Aramaic would only be found in that short narrative of Thessalonikka. But, thanks for your posts, Paul. BTW, the first words of my reply: Do y ou speak Greek?? I am good!! Thank-you very much.

Oh, and just for fun. You live in Chicago, right?? I can only imagine some of the conversations you might have had with some of those Greeks there . . .(Chicago has a large Greek population. 2nd only to New York, I think. You must know this.) . . . presenting the idea that the New Testament was written in Aramaic and not Greek. In that town to any devout Eastern Orthodox believer those are "fighting words" as I think you used before. I can only think of some of the reaction to serious Greek Orthodox folk. MMMMMMMMMMM boy. LOL LOL

Again Paul, Thanks for your help and aid.

Mike Karoules
Reply
#6
Yasoo Mike,

Ego Megalo Poino-kephalo! (did I say that right?)

I've got some Greeks right here in the offices next to me. Mostly today we are arguing about fantasy football and not the scriptures. But I will tell you that both of my God-parents are Greeks. Additionally, two grandparents came to the U.S. after having lived for 30 years in Athens. I visited as a child but I don't remember it. So I know very little conversational Greek.

Actually the topic of Aramaic is very popular among the Greeks that I know. Like the Assyrians, you get the occasional ultra-nationalist. And believe it or not there are Assyrians who are Greek Primacists, even fellow clergy in the Church of the East. Can't win them all.

Another favorite topic here at the office is the Turks, but that's off limits here. We have that in common, too. =)

+Shamasha Paul

PS - you know you guys lifted most of your cuisine from us, right? <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Reply
#7
Paul,

Actually, I am not fluent in either NT Greek nor mdern converstional Greek. I came close during a time that I stayed in a section of Greece back in the 80's. But coming back to the US I lost alot of it again. Obviously the best way to learn the language is to learn it while one is growing up.

That sure was news to me; that you have even clergy in the COE that are Greek Primacists. Very, very surprising and interesting.

Also my point on "POLITARXAS" could be further deflated if inscriptions of this term come up in Western Asia Minor in cities like Ephesus, Smyrna, Hieropolis, Colossae and all in that area. I think I might do some research time and G-d permitting. Thank-you, Paul

Mike Karoules
Reply
#8
Mike Kar Wrote:That sure was news to me; that you have even clergy in the COE that are Greek Primacists. Very, very surprising and interesting.

Sure, I've argued the case with many of them. Priests and deacons and bishops. Lots agree with me, others don't. The vast majority in the CoE are Aramaic primacists, but you know not everyone can agree on something.

Would it be surprising to know there are Catholic, and even Greek clergy who are Aramaic primacists? Because there are.

There's room for opinion even within a church like the CoE.

We like to stick to evidence here, though. We'll win them over yet.

+Shamasha
Reply
#9
Paul,

Sure, its is even more surprising that there are or maybe priests or bishops in the Catholic church who are Aramaic Primacists. But considering Matthew 16:18 this could be because they don't have to "work" around the Greek words of "Petra" and "Petros" to defend the Supremecy of the pope. An Aramaic Matthew in ch. 16:18 does well for the. As for any Aramaic Primacists within the leadership of the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Church. That too would surprise me because as I was growing up the Greeks were very proud of their language and I heard a number of times that it was in the language of the Greeks that the New Testament Church was written. I don't know if this is instilled as much today in Greek Orthodox churches. I grew up in the 70's and there was no question or alternative other than a Greek New Testament. BTW, Aramaic Primacy is fairly new to me. Just this year as a matter of fact. The evidence for Aramaic Primacy is pretty good but it also says in the epistle to Thessalonians that we should "test everything." With an issue like this it takes time and I am the kind of guy that is prone to check and turn over every rock. I may be too particular (others might say "picky") but that is just me. Thanks, Paul.

1 John

God is love

Mike Karoules
Reply
#10
Quote: The evidence for Aramaic Primacy is pretty good but it also says in the epistle to Thessalonians that we should "test everything." With an issue like this it takes time and I am the kind of guy that is prone to check and turn over every rock.

I Thessalonians 5:21
"Test all things; Hold fast what is good."

Hi Mike:
Here's something to chew over. In the Greek New Testament there is an apparent contradiction. This apparent contradiction is resolved in the Peshitta New Testament. In the Greek New Testament there is a discrepancy in the four lists of the disciples in Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:14-19, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13. In Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 the Greek New Testament reads Simon the Canaanite. This reading is in all extant Greek manuscripts that I am aware of. However, in Luke 6:15 as well as Acts 1:13 the Greek New Testament reads Simon the Zealot. This is an apparent contradiction. How could this same Simon be a Zealot and a Canaanite.

The Resolve
The Peshitta New Testament uses the Hebrew word kananya in Matthew 10:4 and also in Mark 3:18 while using the Aramaic word tanana in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13. When the Peshitta New Testament was translated into Greek, kananya was mistranslated to mean Canaanite. However, the Hebrew word for zealot is kananya. The Hebrew root of this word is used quite frequently in the T"NK (Old Testament) and is translated as zealous or jealous in such places as Exodus 20:5 kana, Deuteronomy 4:24 kana, 32:16 yaq'nihu, Joshua 24:19 El-kano, I Kings 19:10 kano kinaiti and 19:14, Ezekiel 39:25 v'kinaiti, Joel 2:18 vay'kanai, Zechariah 1:14 kinaiti and kin'a and 8:2 kinaiti l'Tzion kin'a.
The Aramaic Peshitta preserves the Hebraic context of the scriptures while the Greek New Testament sometimes mistranslates a word. In this case the Peshitta resolves an apparent contradiction.

Kindly,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#11
Stephen,

Thank-you for replying. But I am trying to follow your logic, here. So, then "Kanyana" is to be interpreteted as "Zealot" in the New Testament Aramaic?? What then is the 2nd word (in blue) interpreted to mean ("Tanana" I think it was ?)?? To be sure, where is the probability of error in the Greek??

Stephen, do y ou believe in the inspirational 27 book of the New Testament??

Sincerely,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#12
Stephen,

Also something to chew on in response. Remember Uriah the Hittite in the Old Testament?? See what I am getting at?? Even though he was a "Hittite," he was , from all what we can tell, an Israelite and, therefore, a Jew by prosylitization. This could be the same thing with Simon. He could be both a "Cannanite" by birth and Jewish by prosylitization. Luke, or Mark or even Matthew for that matter may be just giving a real brief backround of him and the other gospels describing him as zealus. That may not be uncommon as you think. Even back in the days of the Old Covenant anyone could become a Jew if they wish and if they submitted to circumcision. Just food for thought.

Mike Karoules
Reply
#13
Stephen

Here I am again. Well, far more convincing to me is the "split-word" examples like in Luke 17:35 where you have some Greek manuscripts tranlsated as "children" and other Greek manuscripts translated as "works."

Steve, BTW, maybe just off the top of your head; how many of these splite word examples are there in Luke-Acts??

I am sure you are aware of Acts 2:24. Well, I have thought about this some more over this past weekend and it is not so convincing in favor of Aramaic Primacy as I first thought. The "translator" isn't violating any grammer or syntax rules that I see. Is he?? And taking into consideration the word "sorrows" or "pains," the picture that the Apostle Peter is painting in his sermon to his audience is not doing any injustice to the point he is trying to make. The only thing in this verse (Acts 2:24) that would seem to "fit" better would be "cords." Sure, this word may do a better job but this does not prove "Aramaic Primacy" as being a crystal clear example or proof. Maybe consider these 2 options in english:

"Last night when I received the bad news of his death - I could not go to sleep. I was drowning in my own 'sorrows' ." Or:

"Last night when I received the bad news of his death - I could not go to sleep. I was drowning in my own 'tears.' "

Notice the second phrase may fit the picture more effectively as you link "drowning" with "tears," as opposed to "drowning" with "sorrows." But both phrases bring across the point.

Are you with me??

Mike
Reply
#14
Hey Akhi Mike,

The key here is to first establish the proper meaning. When we consider the '...loosened...' and the '....because it's not possible that He be held by it', it's pretty clear that the meaning is that of "cords".

The interesting aspect for Aramaic primacy in this verse is that the word "khevel" in both Aramaic and Hebrew means both "cords" and "pains", and although either meaning works, they both do not work equally well. Obviously, the 'cords' meaning words much better in the context and the fact that the Greek manuscripts contain the wrong choice in this "dual-meaning" choice, it's a pretty clear cut case of a mistranslation.

Especially considering the consistent idiomatic usage of "khevel" in the OT for the "cords of sheol" and the imagery drawn of being held by them in the grave.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#15
Mike Kar Wrote:Stephen,

Also something to chew on in response. Remember Uriah the Hittite in the Old Testament?? See what I am getting at?? Even though he was a "Hittite," he was , from all what we can tell, an Israelite and, therefore, a Jew by prosylitization. This could be the same thing with Simon. He could be both a "Cannanite" by birth and Jewish by prosylitization. Luke, or Mark or even Matthew for that matter may be just giving a real brief backround of him and the other gospels describing him as zealus. That may not be uncommon as you think. Even back in the days of the Old Covenant anyone could become a Jew if they wish and if they submitted to circumcision. Just food for thought.

Mike Karoules

Hi Mike:
Here's something to chew over. In the Greek New Testament there is an apparent contradiction. This apparent contradiction is resolved in the Peshitta New Testament. In the Greek New Testament there is a discrepancy in the four lists of the disciples in Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:14-19, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13. In Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 the Greek New Testament reads Simon the Canaanite. This reading is in all extant Greek manuscripts that I am aware of. However, in Luke 6:15 as well as Acts 1:13 the Greek New Testament reads Simon the Zealot. This is an apparent contradiction. How could this same Simon be a Zealot and a Canaanite.

The Resolve
The Peshitta New Testament uses the Hebrew word kananya in Matthew 10:4 and also in Mark 3:18 while using the Aramaic word tanana in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13. When the Peshitta New Testament was translated into Greek, kananya was mistranslated to mean Canaanite. However, the Hebrew word for zealot is kananya. The Hebrew root of this word is used quite frequently in the T"NK (Old Testament) and is translated as zealous or jealous in such places as Exodus 20:5 kana, Deuteronomy 4:24 kana, 32:16 yaq'nihu, Joshua 24:19 El-kano, I Kings 19:10 kano kinaiti and 19:14, Ezekiel 39:25 v'kinaiti, Joel 2:18 vay'kanai, Zechariah 1:14 kinaiti and kin'a and 8:2 kinaiti l'Tzion kin'a.
The Aramaic Peshitta preserves the Hebraic context of the scriptures while the Greek New Testament sometimes mistranslates a word. In this case the Peshitta resolves an apparent contradiction.

Hi Mike:
It looks to me that you didn't really read my post. Please understand that in this case the Greek New Testament does not reflect Jewish thought, culture or LAW. When a Gentile becomes a Jew he is not reminded of his past. He is "born again" as they say. As for Uriah the Hitite, there is no reason to believe that he was not a Hitite serving in David's guard. David had close Moabite relatives and made friends with Hiram of Tyre and he also was on speaking terms from time to time with certain Philistine kings. Nevertheless, it is not credible that Simon the Zealot was a non-Jewish disciple. Also, we have an ancient translation of the Hebrew TN"K into Aramaic. The text is bonafide because the Khabouris Codex is virtually verbatim when quoting from the A"NK. The Peshitta Old Testament that is available today is called the Ambrosiano Codex. It is the close textual relationship between the T"NK and the A"NK that can show conclusively that kana and tanana are identical cognates. The only difference between the two words is the first letter. Nevertheless, k and t sound the same. This is a common textual quirk between some Hebrew and Aramaic words that share the same prime root.
When cross-referencing the translation of the same Hebrew T"NK passages in the Aramaic Peshitta A"NK you will find the word tanana or it's prime root in all of the places where the Hebrew root kana appears. They are an equivalent expression and precise cognates. Since the Peshitta New Testament is written in the same language as the Peshitta A"NK, the Old Testament translation of the Hebrew T"NK, there can be no mistake as to the error that has been made in translating kana as Canaanite instead of zealot.
When you have 4 identical lists and there is a discrepancy of this type in two of the lists it's wise to dig a little deeper for the plain truth rather than defend the Greek use of Simon the Canaanite. Quite simply, the Peshitta New Testament resolves this discrepancy without any textual gymnastics.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)