Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Peshitta version of the Gospel
#1
As someone who is keen to discover the most authentic version of the message of Ishoa, I would appreciate some assistance with the following query.

Is there any evidence to show that the Peshitta version of the Gospels are more authentic than the Greek writings - what I am getting at here is, are the contents of the Peshitta Gospel merely translations from the oldest Greek manuscripts? This is a fair question to ask, as one can see that the number of verses in each of the 4 books are the same, with much the same content, and most intriguingly it would seem, still such references to Aramaic words being translated, despite the text being in Aramaic. I.e. describing the meaning of Emmanuel or Eli Eli Lama....etc. Hope you see what I am getting at.

When I say evidence I do not mean statements made by clerics, but rather more solid historical evidence such as documents or references. Is the Peshitta Gospel, as the one on this site and used by many of the Eastern Churches, a translation from the early Greek ones or not? I have been to the aramaicNT.org site where work is being done to address some of these issues. However, I do not need convincing that Ishoa didn't speak Greek as I am already quite certain he would have spoken a Semetic tongue, as the early Greek manuscripts itself shows. But is the currently used Peshitta merely a translation from this? This question has been bugging me for ages in my quest to find out the real good-news.

I hope someone can assist me in finding the truth! :?
Reply
#2
>This is a fair question to ask, as one can see that the number of verses in each of the 4 books are the same,

Almost, but not quite. If you look at Yochanan (John) closely, you'll notice that the Peshitta lacks the account of the woman caught in adultery. I read in the footnotes of a translation from the Greek, that they considered the "adulterous woman" to be a factual story involving Y'shua, but that it was a later addition not included by Yochanan himself. If that is the case, it would explain why the Peshitta lacks it.

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#3
Quote:Almost, but not quite. If you look at Yochanan (John) closely, you'll notice that the Peshitta lacks the account of the woman caught in adultery. I read in the footnotes of a translation from the Greek, that they considered the "adulterous woman" to be a factual story involving Y'shua, but that it was a later addition not included by Yochanan himself. If that is the case, it would explain why the Peshitta lacks it.

Shlama, Craig
[/quote]

Thanks Craig. Although I was talking generally, I am glad you highlighted this. But any thoughts on my main question about whether the Peshitta Gospel is itself based upon the oldest Greek texts [even though Ishoa most likely spoke Aramaic, it does not necessarily mean that the Peshitta Gospels are not translations from the Greek].

Anyone with any views let me know. :?
Reply
#4
Hi Gentile (?),

You said:

Gentile Wrote:Is there any evidence to show that the Peshitta version of the Gospels are more authentic than the Greek writings - what I am getting at here is, are the contents of the Peshitta Gospel merely translations from the oldest Greek manuscripts? This is a fair question to ask, as one can see that the number of verses in each of the 4 books are the same, with much the same content, and most intriguingly it would seem, still such references to Aramaic words being translated, despite the text being in Aramaic. I.e. describing the meaning of Emmanuel or Eli Eli Lama....etc. Hope you see what I am getting at.

Several answers to your several questions:

1- The same number of verses can go either way (Greek-Aramaic or Aramaic-Greek)
2- References to Aramaic words being translated: Emmanuel is not an Aramaic word - it's Hebrew. So it's natural that it's translated into Aramaic. The other example (Eli, Eli...) is only further explained by Mark (Peshitta Matthew does not contain the gloss). The only reason it's explained by Mark ("Eil" interpreted into "Alahi") is because Mark spoke a different dialect of Aramaic.

Quote:When I say evidence I do not mean statements made by clerics, but rather more solid historical evidence such as documents or references.

Read all of the examples being posted here and the ones present in the old forum archive (under the "Links" button).

Believe me, no one is asking you to blindly trust statements made by clerics! <!-- sConfusedhock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhock:" title="shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhock: -->

Quote:I hope someone can assist me in finding the truth!

We can! And you will see the truth, if you want to! <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Take care!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
To the sir who wanted proof of Aramaic primacy. Take a look at split words, there is a forum here about them. Not only do they prove that Aramaic preceeds Greek, but that the various Greek mss were translated from Aramaic. I have a feeling that split word forum will boom in the next month or so...
Reply
#6
George Kiraz who writes on the Syriac Orthodox Resources site says this:

Quote:The Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac Gospels, itself a translation
of the Greek. The Greek is of course based on Aramaic oral tradition;
thusfar no text in Aramaic has been found, but there are reconstructions.

But this site says that the Peshitta is the original and the early Greek texts were translated out of this am I right? So what about the above statement? <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->
Reply
#7
Quote:George Kiraz who writes on the Syriac Orthodox Resources site says this: "The Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac Gospels, itself a translation of the Greek."

George Kiraz is wrong. All the ancient Fathers of the Church say in one voice that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue.

Best,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#8
Forget about arguing the history of people's opinions. The big proof is in the texts themselves!
Reply
#9
drmlanc Wrote:Forget about arguing the history of people's opinions. The big proof is in the texts themselves!

Who cares what Mr. Kiraz thinks? I don't mean to sound mean <!-- s:mad: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/mad.gif" alt=":mad:" title="Mad" /><!-- s:mad: --> - but he's just parroting what all the others say - it's called "scholarly consensus." <!-- sSleepy --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="Sleepy" title="Sleepy" /><!-- sSleepy -->

So if Mr. Kiraz says the sun revolves around the earth, that means it's gotta be correct? Remember - that was the "scholarly consensus" at one time in history. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
yuku Wrote:All the ancient Fathers of the Church say in one voice that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue.

Best,

Yuri.

Akhi Yuri,

Pray tell me why, in the Greek version of the Gospel of John, are words that are said to be 'Hebrew' actually transliterations of Aramaic words?

Shlama,
Rob
<font face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="4">
hnm Lqt4n hl ty0d wh P0 hl tyld Nmw hl Bhytn ryg hl ty0d Nm
(w4y</font>
Reply
#11
Rob Vanhoff Wrote:
yuku Wrote:All the ancient Fathers of the Church say in one voice that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue.

Best,

Yuri.

Akhi Yuri,

Pray tell me why, in the Greek version of the Gospel of John, are words that are said to be 'Hebrew' actually transliterations of Aramaic words?

Shlama,
Rob

Akhi Yuri,

Akhan Rob is absolutely correct. In 1st-century Israel - Aramaic was called "Hebrew", because that was the language of the "Hebrews."

We can call our language "American" - but it's really "English" that we speak - albeit a little bit different than what England speaks.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
"Aramaic was called "Hebrew", because that was the language of the "Hebrews." "

Awesome Akhi, but what did they call Hebrew?
Reply
#13
drmlanc Wrote:"Aramaic was called "Hebrew", because that was the language of the "Hebrews." "

Awesome Akhi, but what did they call Hebrew?

Shlama Akhi,

You know that today we speak many, many modern dialects of Aramaic - right? We call all of them "Lishana Swadaya" - "the contemporary tongue."

But when we want to refer to the old, classical language (that of the Peshitta) - we call it "Lishana Ateeqa" - "the ancient tongue".

I presume that the Jews in 1st-century Israel would've done the same.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
Like English and old english?
Reply
#15
drmlanc Wrote:Like English and old english?

Have you ever heard an Assyrian calling their language "Assyrian?" A Chaldean does the same thing - they call their language "Chaldean." A Syriac does the same thing - they call their language "Syriac."

There are in fact no such languages as the three mentioned above!

It's all the same language - Aramaic - it's just that people name it after their national/ethnic name because they happen to speak it.

You know how many times elders in the community have asked me if I speak "Assyrian?"

It's not Assyrian! It's Aramaic!

And at the same time, the language of the Hebrews during the 1st century, although they called it "Hebrew" - was really "Aramaic!"

Makes sense? It shouldn't.....
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)