Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does it matter if Aramaic Primacy is wrong?
#1
While I hold to Aramaic primacy, I don't believe it matters too much whether it is wrong. If the Peshitta is not the original New Testament, then at least it would be the oldest translation, probably made at the same time that the Greek original was first distributed. Furthermore, it provides a valuable resource for understanding the original words of Jesus, and the mindset of the first Semitic Christians, since it's in the language that they spoke.
Reply
#2
Spyridon Wrote:While I hold to Aramaic primacy, I don't believe it matters too much whether it is wrong. If the Peshitta is not the original New Testament, then at least it would be the oldest translation, probably made at the same time that the Greek original was first distributed. Furthermore, it provides a valuable resource for understanding the original words of Jesus, and the mindset of the first Semitic Christians, since it's in the language that they spoke.

Shlama Akhi Spyridon:
The Peshitta resolves too many errors in the Greek New Testament to be false. The CoE has had continual, unbroken custodianship since 50 A.D. Their testimony is solid.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#3
Spyridon Wrote:While I hold to Aramaic primacy, I don't believe it matters too much whether it is wrong. If the Peshitta is not the original New Testament, then at least it would be the oldest translation, probably made at the same time that the Greek original was first distributed. Furthermore, it provides a valuable resource for understanding the original words of Jesus, and the mindset of the first Semitic Christians, since it's in the language that they spoke.

Shlama Akhan Spyridon,

I understand what you are saying, i.e., even if the Aramaic NT were a translation it would be valuable in the sense that it would be a reconstruction of the Aramaic sayings of Jesus (albeit vis-a-vis a Greek medium.)

However, consider the deeper implications of such a viewpoint. The gulf between the languages is immense. It's not like Greek to Latin, or Arabic to Hebrew. We're talking two totally different linguistic and cultural psyches.

If we were to not to give this issue the attention that it deserves, then that leaves us Christians in an unenviable position among the worlds major religions: we would be the only faith that has failed to preserve the original teachings of the Founder of our faith.

Moses' words are preserved in the very tongue he uttered them. Same with Muhammad. But Jesus, we would have lost his original words if the above were indeed the case.

How could anyone be sure that the Apostles, writing in Greek, could have conveyed to a precise level the very meaning of Jesus' teachings, word-plays, parallelisms, imagery...etc?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: if the Messiah and the people he came to preach to were speakers of Swahili, I would be a Swahili Primacist. I would want to study His teachings in that particular African tongue.

But if His original teachings in Swahili only survived in Aramaic texts, with later Swahili translations - then I would probably not be a Christian. And I really do mean that. How could anyone convince me that no one bothered to save the most important words ever uttered in the Swahili tongue? As if Moses' or Muhammad's teachings were more important, that they should be preserved to us to this day in the original form, and not those of our Saviour? They weren't that important to save in their original form?

Aside from the evidence we have within the Greek text itself, that faithfully preserved its Aramaic origin....and aside from Akhan Stephen's point above that our faith is more defensible because of the problems that are solved within the Aramaic framework......are we really comfortable with the belief that we've lost the most important words ever uttered to a translation? Because even the most ardent Greek primacist will admit that the portions of the Gospel that are direct quotes of the Messiah are translations into Greek.

Are we to settle for a translation?

+Shamasha
Reply
#4
The Septuagint was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so it's possible that Jews of Palestine understood both Greek and Aramaic, and that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, but with Jesus' words in the Peshitta being the original, untranslated words of Jesus.
Reply
#5
Spyridon Wrote:The Septuagint was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so it's possible that Jews of Palestine understood both Greek and Aramaic, and that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, but with Jesus' words in the Peshitta being the original, untranslated words of Jesus.

I have no problem with the Septuagint being found in Qumran. Nor with the Jews in Palestine speaking, writing and composing in Greek.

I have a problem with the Aramaic words of the Messiah being lost. Because if the NT was originally written in Greek, then the Peshitta is a translation and can't possibly contain the original, untranslated words of Jesus. It's simply not possible. It would be a translation of the original language of the NT, Greek in that scenario. Which, in the case of Christ's words, was itself a translation of the original Aramaic He uttered.

So we go from Aramaic (now lost) to Greek, then back to Aramaic. But something would have been lost.

The original, untranslated words of Jesus would (under that scenario) simply not exist. That's what I view as a very problematic viewpoint.

Again, if Jesus spoke Greek in the parables or the sermon on the mount or the Lord's Prayer, I would be a Greek primacist.

But I can't hold to the viewpoint that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, yet His words were only preserved in Greek. That is the nearly unanimous position of Greek Primacists today. That still leaves the problem intact. We've lost the original words of Christ.

+Shamasha
Reply
#6
It could be that Q existed, and that it contained the Aramaic words of Jesus used both for the Peshitta and the Greek New Testament.
Reply
#7
Spyridon Wrote:It could be that Q existed, and that it contained the Aramaic words of Jesus used both for the Peshitta and the Greek New Testament.

But again, if Q ever existed and is now lost then it stands that the original words of Christ are lost.

What if "Q" is really the Peshitta, and the evidence shows it? What if it's never been lost? What if Christendom has preserved it?

+Shamasha
Reply
#8
I tend to agree with this article:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Articles/unpublished_proofs/aramaic_peshitta_unoriginal.htm">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Articles ... iginal.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#9
Aramaic Primacy even if it is wrong may be still better than Greek Manuscript translated to English. Agreed. But it leaves room for doubt about its unaltered and preserved as the original text from the Apostles. For instance the name of God does not tally with Peshitta version in the West.

Why the name of God is called Alaha or MarYah 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? (KJV)

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. (KJV)

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


Based on Matthew 27:47, the holy name of God used by Yeshua is neither Alaha nor MarkYah but "El" or Elohim which is similar in pronuciation to El-ijah.

It proves that Aramaic Peshitta has been altered and not the original text in Aramaic. Greek Textus Receptus which underlies the translation of KJV, is honest to retain the Aramaic words which translators may be uncertain of how to translate from Aramaic phrase "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani". Now "El" is the holy name used by Yeshua. So MarkYah and Alaha have no place in Aramaic Peshitta. It proves one thing; that is the manuscript with words of Alaha or MarkYah for God is not the original word used by Lord Yeshua and it has been altered by scribes have personal agenda.
Reply
#10
shlomo Positron,

El is spelled => ayl (vocalised eel or el)
Alaha is spelled => alha

Is Elohim (spelled alhym) in Hebrew a proper usage?
(the "ym" in Hebrew is for the plural of "alh" (in Aramaic the "ym" would be "yn"))

Is the use of YHWH a proper usage?

The use of Alaha is in the biblical manuscript of Daniel (from Qumran -- 4QDan-a-112 (around 100BC)), were they wrong to use it?
?????? ????????????[ ????]?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? [???? ??]???????? ??????

Matthew 27:46 in the Peshitta:
???????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????? ????????????????????

Mark 15:34
?????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????????????????

Please clarify the point your are trying to make, as the Peshitta in both Matthew and Mark uses "eel", and Mark shows that he was clarifying it further for people who were more familiar with "alaha" than "eel".

So the translator of the KJV which is based on the Greek:
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? (KJV)

The KJV repeated the clarification twice of Mark, instead of having the original and then the clarification.
Orig => eel eel lmana shbaqtan(y)
Clarification => alah(y) alah(y) lmana shbaqtan(y)

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#11
Thank you abudar for your kind explanation.

Jesus must be preaching to His people in Aramaic because He is from the Aramaic native speaking and His Hearers are Aramaic speaking too. So the Holy Name of God in Aramaic must be known without a shadow of doubt. Otherwise Aramaic Primacy serves no purpose.

abudar2000 Wrote:shlomo Positron,

El is spelled => ayl (vocalised eel or el)
Alaha is spelled => alha

Is Elohim (spelled alhym) in Hebrew a proper usage?
(the "ym" in Hebrew is for the plural of "alh" (in Aramaic the "ym" would be "yn"))

Is the use of YHWH a proper usage?

The use of Alaha is in the biblical manuscript of Daniel (from Qumran -- 4QDan-a-112 (around 100BC)), were they wrong to use it?
?????? ????????????[ ????]?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? [???? ??]???????? ??????

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun


In Gospel of Jesus according to John 10:36 (Jesus said) ..."I am The Son of God"

Is it right to translate as "I am The Son of Allah"?
Is Aloha the same word as Allah in Arabic?

There are some who claimed that "Allah" is found in Aramaic Peshitta Bible which is the true name of God. What do you have to say about this issue?
How can we know for sure that Aramaic Peshitta is not altered by any scribes and the name Alha is most Holy Name of God of Abraham and Father of Jesus?

What is the Most Holy Name of GOD in Aramaic?
Reply
#12
shlomo Positron,

positron Wrote:Jesus must be preaching to His people in Aramaic because He is from the Aramaic native speaking and His Hearers are Aramaic speaking too. So the Holy Name of God in Aramaic must be known without a shadow of doubt. Otherwise Aramaic Primacy serves no purpose.

I think once you study some Aramaic, Semitic languages, and Jewish traditions then you'll be able to answer you own questions.

positron Wrote:In Gospel of Jesus according to John 10:36 (Jesus said) ..."I am The Son of God"

Is it right to translate as "I am The Son of Allah"?
Is Aloha the same word as Allah in Arabic?

It is spelled "alaha" and not "allah"

The "allah" in Arabic is made of "al" and "lah" (i.e. al-lah). Although it started it out from Aramaic, they've changed the way they spell it.

positron Wrote:There are some who claimed that "Allah" is found in Aramaic Peshitta Bible which is the true name of God. What do you have to say about this issue?

Please see above!

Arabic as a language, in its beginning, was a mix of Aramaic, Hebrew, Persian, and local Bedouin.

"alaha" <= It refers to god in the general sense, or to the One God, but it is not a proper name.

In Arabic they use "allah" as a proper name for God.

positron Wrote:How can we know for sure that Aramaic Peshitta is not altered by any scribes and the name Alha is most Holy Name of God of Abraham and Father of Jesus?

That was already answered in my last post, and I even showed you a source from a 100 years before the time of Christ, which used "alaha".

positron Wrote:What is the Most Holy Name of GOD in Aramaic?

marya <= Lord YHWH
alaha <= God
marya alaha => Lord YHWH is God

Philippians 2:11 => ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????????
marya (Lord YHWH) is Yeshu' (Jesus) msheeHa (Christ), with the glory of alaha (God) His Father.

eel/el <= Refers to the One God (in the Jewish and the Christian context), but is usually used in Aramaic/Hebrew to construct proper names like "Israel", "Mikhoyel", etc... which have a religious meaning in relation to the One God (ancient tradition -- before the Christian period.)

In Genesis 33:20 we have => "eel alaha disrayel" <= As a name => eel God of Israyel

"eel/el" is also found in other languages, like Akkadian, but in those languages it usually refers to God in the general sense.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#13
Quote:marya <= Lord YHWH
alaha <= God
marya alaha => Lord YHWH is God

Philippians 2:11 => ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????????
marya (Lord YHWH) is Yeshu' (Jesus) msheeHa (Christ), with the glory of alaha (God) His Father.

YHWH is the Hebrew Name of God of Abraham in the OT.

Marya = LORD

When "Marya" was first practised to mean LORD YHWH? Are there verses in NT such as Luke 2:11 for Lord to mean "Lord YHWH"?

Luke 2:11 For there is born to you this day a deliverer, who is the Lord Messiah, in the city of David (Murdock)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)