Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Age of the Peshitta
#16
I think I have to step in here and mention this.

I believe Peshitta is written by the disciples of Jesus Christ in first century AD. The integrity of Aramaic started to weaken only after 106 AD (when Nabatean Kingdom ended).

The integrity of Aramaic began to fall apart after 130 AD when Bar Kokhba came to power in 131/132 AD and he tried to revive Hebrew for the sake of his messianic idealogy and tried to make Hebrew the official language of the state during Bar Kokhba revolt instead of Aramaic.

In first century AD, we know that People from Galilee, Judaea, Jerusalem, Idumaea, Tyre, Sidon, Syria, and from beyond Jordan came to see Jesus for healing and to hear his discourses.

Mark 3:7-8 (Murdock Translation of Western Peshitto) ? ?And Jesus retired with his disciples to the sea. And many people joined him from Galilee, and from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan, and from Tyre, and from Sidon: great multitudes, when they heard all that he did, came to him.?

Luke 6:17 (Murdock Translation of Western Peshitto) ? ?And Jesus descended with them, and stood in the plain; and a great company of his disciples, and a multitude of assembled people, from all Judaea, and from Jerusalem and from the seashore of Tyre and Sidon; who came to hear his discourse, and to be healed of their diseases;?

Matthew 4:24-25 (Murdock Translation of Western Peshitto) ? ?And his fame spread through all Syria. And they brought to him all them that were very sick with diverse diseases, and them that were afflicted with pains, and demoniacs, and lunatics and paralytics; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes from Galilee, and from the Ten Cities, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond the Jordan.?

Ten cities include cities from Israel, Jordan, and Syria. They all understood what Jesus was saying. That proves that Aramaic was mutually intelligible in first century AD.

This is also supported by Jewish Historian Josephus.

Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1): "I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work]."

Notice the fact that he wrote Jewish Wars formerly in the language of his country and sent to Upper Barbarians. We read that Josephus translated into Greek for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans. Josephus wrote Jewish Wars in 2 languages.

Jewish Wars Book 1 Preface, Paragraph 2 - "I thought it therefore an absurd thing to see the truth falsified in affairs of such great consequence, and to take no notice of it; but to suffer those Greeks and Romans that were not in the wars to be ignorant of these things, and to read either flatteries or fictions, while the Parthians, and the Babylonians, and the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni, by my means, knew accurately both whence the war begun, what miseries it brought upon us, and after what manner it ended."

We read that Parthians, Babylonians, remotest Arabians, and those of his nation beyond Euphrates with Adiabeni knew accurately about Jewish Wars through Josephus. This easily means that Aramaic spoken by Josephus and his country (Israel) was also the same spoken among Parthians, Babylonians, and remotest Arabians.

The difference between the way Galileans spoke Aramaic and Judean spoke Aramaic was just like how Cockney sounds to a British aristocrat. Just think of Eliza Doolittle (Wendy Hiller) and Professor Higgins (Leslie Howard) in Pygmalion.

The originality of Peshitta can be seen even through Greek manuscripts.

Talitha Koum in Greek

A few Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) of Mark's Gospel have this form (Talitha Koum) of the text, but others (Codex Alexandrinus, the text-type known as the Majority Text, and the Latin Vulgate) write Talitha Koumi instead of Koum.

In Peshitta Aramaic, "i" in Koumi is written. But it is not pronounced. So the pronunciation is "Talitha Koum" while it is written as "Talitha Koumi." What happened was the scribes of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus wrote the pronunciation "Talitha Koum" while the scribes of Codex Alexandrinus and other manuscripts transliterated words "Talitha Koumi"as it is written in Peshitta.

Source - Wheeler Thackston's Book "Introduction to Syriac", section 14.6 "Imperatives section", Page 81.

Syriac is just another name for Aramaic. Greeks called Arameans "Syrians" and Aramaic (written by Galileans and Arameans in Estrangela script) as Syriac.

For Example, "Aram" and "Arameans" (in 2 Samuel 8:6 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) are called "Syria" and "Syrians" (in 2 Samuel 8:6 of Septuagint).

That is why NIV translates "Aramean language" in (2 Kings 18:26 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) as "Aramaic" and Douay Rheims Bible translates "Syrian language" found in 2 Kings 18:26 of Septuagint and "Syriace" in 2 Kings 18:26 of Latin Vulgate as Syriac.

Aside from mentioned above, the idea that Peshitta Syriac didn't exist before 3rd century AD wouldn't make any sense considering the fact that Book of Job in Septuagint was translated from Syriac.

Book "Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible" by Martin McNamara, Page 96 - In Septuagint manuscripts (Manuscripts- Aleph, A, B, and C), there is an epilogue in Book of Job which is introduced with the words: "houtos hermeneutai ek tes syriakes bibliou."

Translation - "this was translated from the Syriac book".
Reply
#17
konway87 Wrote:I think I have to step in here and mention this.

I believe Peshitta is written by the disciples of Jesus Christ in first century AD. The integrity of Aramaic started to weaken only after 106 AD (when Nabatean Kingdom ended).


Translation - "this was translated from the Syriac book".
Thanks for the posting.
Is it possible they kept a uniformity because of the yearly feasts in Jerusalem?
Reply
#18
Yes, I believe they were able to keep a uniformity even during yearly feasts in Jerusalem.

As we all know, Josephus points out that Jewish Nation didn't encourage the learning of Greek in first century Israel. Because of this, Jews knowing Greek were extremely few even in AD 93/94 when Antiquities of Jews was finished.

First century Jewish Historian and Jewish Priest Josephus wrote in his last book and last chapter of Antiquities of Jews ?

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;b ecause they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains." - Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

Josephus also points out that Greek was an unaccustomed language to Jews when he started working on translating Antiquities of Jews into Greek.

Antiquities of Jews Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 2 - "Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures. And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, to explain who the Jews originally were, - what fortunes they had been subject to, - and by what legislature they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise of other virtues, - what wars also they had made in remote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans: but because this work would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language."

Aside from the testimony of Josephus, we know that Jews spoke Aramaic wherever they lived.

This was mentioned by Dave Bauscher in his book.

When Jews from the province of Asia (Ephesus region in Turkey) saw Apostle Paul and Trophimos the Aramean at the temple of Jerusalem (Acts Chapter 21:27-29 of Peshitta), they called Israelites for help in Aramaic.

konway87
Reply
#19
Shalam Konway

Quote:Ten cities include cities from Israel, Jordan, and Syria. They all understood what Jesus was saying. That proves that Aramaic was mutually intelligible in first century AD.

All these dialects belongs to "western Aramaic" (or what beginned to be the western Aramaic). It's logical that their dialetcs were mutually intelligible.
And Rabbi Gamaliel wrote lettrer to Galileans, Judeans and even Babilonians, so I think we can say that that it was more difficult with the Eastern one.

Quote:Talitha Koum in Greek

The "i" fell in the first Century because of the shift of the stress (on the first syllable). If the "i" is sometime written, it is beacause of the biblical aramaic. But is true that the Peshitta shares some features with galilean Aramaic.
Reply
#20
Coupla' things and I don't know if I'll be able to get all of it posted today.

The Esteemed PY stated:

"Really, it's the "Syriac" speaking Jews of Arbela, Edessa, Harran, Adiabene and Babylon they went to evangelize first.
Assyrians, Chaldeans and Arameans in those areas just happened to speak the same dialect as their Jewish neighbors. And that's true to this very day. There are many "Syriac" speaking Jews in Israel today."

Please see Josephus, Antiquities, 20, 2, 4 (in part):

"So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Ananias. But afterwards, as he had not quite left off his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; for as he entered into his palace to salute him, and found him reading the law of Moses..."

This King is Izates, whose mother was known Helena of Adiabene. (Wiki-P:See "Adiabene")

This "Eleazar" that Josephus refers to comes from "The House of Eleazar", 1 Chronicles 24. The Hasmoneans trace their dynasty from this Patriarch. Many are found in "Meiron". Members of the Mishmarot Service Group "Immer" live in a settlement nearby, in Upper Galilee, named "Jabnit".

NOW: konway87 states:

"I believe they were able to keep a uniformity even during yearly feasts in Jerusalem."

You are correct but there is something very important here. It is the "Mishmarot Service" or "Courses". People did not just show up for Passover with some "Guest Host" performing sacrifices. The Temple Service is ORDERED and "Eleazar" and "Ithamar" provide the Temple Priests. Eisenman and Wise, in Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, analyze the Courses as a check on the various Calendars (Solar and Luni-Solar) in use and the Qumran Group is waiting for the day when they can impose their Solar Calendar on Jerusalem. You think language was important to these people? Most certainly.

One more quote here, when Jesus tells everyone that he was sent to the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel". This is a puzzle to many but it should not be.

Which brings us to Revelation 5: 10 (RSV):

[10] and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on earth...

So, we have an important Priestly contingent keeping Festivals in Jerusalem where it is important to keep The Language pure as well as the Sacrifices. The Priests ARE proselytizing in Upper Galilee in various Assyrian conclaves. All this, however works both ways:

Matthew 26: 69 and 73 (RSV):

[69] Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean."
...
[73] After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."

Hope this helps.

CW

PS: The listing for the Wiki-P bit on "Adiabene" had language fonts that tied up the Post Machine in knots. I took out the various words and it posted. You can go to Wiki-P and see what's there. It's not completely necessary for the argument.
Reply
#21
I don't think there was an Eastern or Western Aramaic dialect during first century AD. The unity of Aramaic "started" to weaken only after 106 AD when Roman Empire under Trajan controlled Provincia Arabia. But the turning points were the rise of Bar Kokhba in 131 AD and Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD).

On the top of that, Josephus clearly states that he wrote Jewish Wars in the language of his country and sent to Upper Barbarians (Parthians, Babylonians, remotest Arabians) and they knew accurately about Jewish Wars through Josephus. We also have to consider the fact that Josephus was a Jewish Priest.

It is not just Israel, Lebanon, and Syria (Western Aramaic regions like memradya pointed out). But also Iraq regions (Babylonians), and Iran regions (Parthians). They knew accurately Jewish Wars through Josephus. So Aramaic in first century AD was just like English we speak today.

Aside from Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Jordan, We also have to notice the fact that people came from beyond Jordan to see Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:24-25, Mark 3:7-8).

Charles, I want to point out that Dead Sea Scrolls should not be relied in terms of antiquity. There are severe criticisms against Dead Sea Scrolls. I also want to point out that I already pointed out the difference in accents in my previous post.

The difference between Galilean accent and Judean Accent was just like how Cockney sounds to a British Aristocrat. They were able to easily recognize a Galilean Accent. if I speak English with my Indian accent, then you can immediately recognize that I am an Indian.

You also have to notice the fact that one of top 3 zealot leaders during Jewish Wars (66-70 AD) was John of Gischala. He was from Galilee and he controlled outer court of the temple.

konway87
Reply
#22
Just to note, in case some don't know. In the oldest (6th-7th century) OT Manuscript that has survived down to today, at the end is a copy of The Jewish War, by Josephus...in the original Aramaic text that he wrote it in.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#23
Thanks for pointing it out, Thirdwoe. I forgot about mentioning it.
Reply
#24
Chuck, that's a 12th century Syriac translation of Book 6 only. It's not the original.
Reply
#25
Isn't it "possible" that it is 12th century copy of Aramaic original written in 1st century AD?

It is certainly not a translation of Greek version of Jewish Wars Book Six.

There are considerable differences between Jewish Wars Six in Codex Ambrosianus and Greek version of Jewish Wars Book Six.
Reply
#26
konway87 Wrote:Isn't it "possible" that it is 12th century copy of Aramaic original written in 1st century AD?

It is certainly not a translation of Greek version of Jewish Wars Book Six.

There are considerable differences between Jewish Wars Six in Codex Ambrosianus and Greek version of Jewish Wars Book Six.

There are considerable differences between all manuscripts, especially between the Greek, the Slavonic, the Hebrew, and the Syriac.

Given that the Syriac uses such late Syriac forms, its likelihood of being the original is nil. Josephus would not have written in Post-Classical Syriac (nor would he have written in Classical or Old Syriac for that matter either; in his day Syriac was not a "Jewish language," it was the language of a few odd converts). Writing in Aramaic, he probably would have used a formalized, contemporary dialect. As a result, no trained Syriacist who has studied it in detail since its discovery endorses an earlier date for it than the 11th or 12th century.
Reply
#27
Syriac is just another name for Aramaic made the Greeks (Aram was called Syria and Arameans as Syrians). If Syriac wasn't a jewish language, then why was Book of Job written in Syriac and translated it into Greek Septuagint?

Josephus himself claims that Jewish Wars in his language was understood accurately by Babylonians and Parthians. How can you deny that?
Reply
#28
konway87 Wrote:Syriac is just another name for Aramaic made the Greeks (Aram was called Syria and Arameans as Syrians). If Syriac wasn't a jewish language, then why was Book of Job written in Syriac and translated it into Greek Septuagint?

Job was not written in Syriac. Where did you get this idea from?

I am using the term "Syriac" in its strictest academic sense. The language of the Syriac manuscript of Book 6 of The Jewish Wars is nearly 1,000 years too young to be original.

Additionally, a large number of Aramaic dialects that are not Syriac use an autonym that is some variation of "Syriac" (as I mentioned earlier about Galilean Aramaic calling *itself* /suriston/; it is not Syriac).
Reply
#29
You are contradicting history altogether, Caruso.

The idea that Syriac didn't exist in first century AD doesn't make any sense.

Book "Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible" by Martin McNamara, Page 96 - In Septuagint manuscripts (Manuscripts- Aleph, A, B, and C), there is an epilogue in Book of Job which is introduced with the words: "houtos hermeneutai ek tes syriakes bibliou."

Translation - "this was translated from the Syriac book".

On the top of that, Jesus Christ was preaching to everyone who came to him - from Syria, Tyre & Sidon in Lebanon, Galilee, Judea, Idumea, Jordan, and beyond Jordan (Matthew 4:24-25, Luke 6:17, Mark 3:7-8).

Khabouris Manuscript is a 11th century copy of a manuscript that can be dated as early as 2nd century AD. Scholars copy the information for religious purposes and also preservation.

It is done in India all the time.
Reply
#30
konway87 Wrote:You are contradicting history altogether, Caruso.

The idea that Syriac didn't exist in first century AD doesn't make any sense.

Book "Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible" by Martin McNamara, Page 96 - In Septuagint manuscripts (Manuscripts- Aleph, A, B, and C), there is an epilogue in Book of Job which is introduced with the words: "houtos hermeneutai ek tes syriakes bibliou."

Translation - "this was translated from the Syriac book".

On the top of that, Jesus Christ was preaching to everyone who came to him from Syria, Tyre & Sidon in Lebanon, Galilee, Judea, Idumea, Jordan, and beyond Jordan (Matthew 4:24-25, Luke 6:17, Mark 3:7-8).

Your logical fallacy is: Ambiguity. Specifically Equivocation, and this is a serious case.

I never said that Syriac did not exist in the 1st century.

There is Syriac, and then there is "Syriac." Both are distinct and have very specific definitions. You are conflating the two, which is a mistake.

Syriac in the academic sense means the family of dialects ranging from Old Syriac, Classical Syriac, Post-Classical Syriac, and all the way up to things like Kthobonoyo and influences within Neo-Aramaic languages. It's a distinct lineage and cluster of dialects.

Many Aramaic dialects that are NOT Syriac in the academic sense go by the autonym "Syriac." As I said in my prior post, Galilean calls itself "Suriston" ("Syriac") but it is not Syriac.

The manuscript of The Jewish Wars that is in Syriac is in Post-Classical Syriac (language later than the 8th century). It is a dialect that did not exist at Josephus' time, nor would it for 1,000 years after him.

For example, you *can* say that 12th century Post-Classical Syriac and Galilean are both "Syriac." One calls itself Suryaya/Suryoyo where the other calls itself Suriston (both from the Greek for "Syriac"). However, they are not the same language. They are a thousand years apart and many miles geographically away from one another.

That manuscript is not what you insist it "possibly" could be. There is no way on earth.

So, with all due and proper respect: Please, stop equivocating. :-)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)