Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Refutation to Aramaic primacists
If you don't understand the significance of James 3:18's Janus Parallelism to the topic at hand, there is no point in discussing the matter further with you. Because you haven't bothered to read it. Otherwise, you wouldn't make an asinine statement like "parallelism is a mindset." You completely miss the point of the example, which is a linguistic one. The Janus parallelism only works in one language. Guess which one? Hint: It doesn't start with the letter G.

You are obviously a monolingual English speaker with absolutely no clue what you're talking about.


Ps. Substance is more important than word count in a post on this forum. You will find that your audience will appreciate a concise and concrete example more than a rambling mishmash of nonsense.
?There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.? William Shakespeare?s Hamlet.

I?m grateful for the body of evidence highlighting Aramaic primacy, beginning with the fact that Yahshua spoke Aramaic to the people he visited around 2,000 years ago. Yahshua?s oral testimony that came from his heart, in harmony with the Father, is the first layer of primacy for the gospel. So the new testament began with words spoken by Yahshua. From there it was given to those with ears to hear, and then into written language, and then into translations throughout the world -- people routinely find there is abundant meaning in the Greek translations, including even mathematical meaning (see for example the works of John Michell).

If you search you'll find mathematical meaning in the Aramaic original, as I love to highlight when the opportunity is presented. Some examples:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3464</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3390</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3420#p21244</a><!-- l -->

The Father is just that awesome that He can encode different layers of meaning across languages and cultures and theories and doctrines and interpretations and experiences. He can make any counted hair on your head meaningful (Matthew 10:30) if needed to enhance your journey. And we see this across cultures and languages throughout the bible, where for example He hardens the Pharaoh?s heart (Exodus 4:21), or writes that special language on the wall (Daniel 5:25), or prophecies through the high priest without his knowledge (John 11:51), or fulfills prophecy through the actions of Roman soldiers without their knowledge (John 19:24), etc.

Just imagine what our Father the mathematician, the artist, the writer, the Lord, has accomplished through the Greek language!

Studying Aramaic is awesome if you make it awesome. Studying Greek can be awesome too if you make it so. ?Then he touched their eyes and said, ?As you have believed it will be to you.?? Matthew 9:29.

Students of the original gospel benefit greatly while training their eyes with Peshitta (Matthew 6:22). My personal experience is that Peshitta brings a fulfillment for me that I cannot find in translations, and it corrects errors in translations.

With regard to the integrity of the Peshitta, this website provides ample discussion of hard evidence. For example, you can learn about the letter-counting system of the ancient scribes, and the resistance of the Church of the East to outside influence that bred translations. You can read how ancient Aramaic survives to this day mostly unchanged (even where different dialects understand one another). You can read David Bauscher?s interlinear and commentary on the 1st Century Peshitto, as he chronicles some thousand different Aramaic & Greek evidentiary matters pointing toward Aramaic primacy and distinguishing Greek primacy. It?s evidence you add up -- if you use it for beneficial purposes, so be it to you. Or if you discard it, then you have a different journey. Simple. Who wants to bite the heels of men on a peaceful journey?

Now, I wasn?t going to respond to your original post gp (especially because others stepped up) but I want to respond to a follow-up post you made telling researchers to repent. Really? For reading ancient codices in the language spoken by the messiah, you call faithful men you don?t know to repentance?

A really important thing we learn as we mature in the patience and endurance of the messiah is that life is full of saga and mystery, and each person is given a personalized journey. If the Father wanted Aramaic primacy or Greek awesomeness to be crystal clear on the face of the earth, he would have made it so (just as he could write the torah in the sky for all to see if He desired). Instead, He has chosen saga and discernment for us. The Father tests us, and creates tasks just complicated enough so we learn to train and build our logical minds. Without struggle of brain and body we become weak and subject to easy manipulation. When we overcome tribulation and logical tests however, well, I?ll let you search for the Aramaic wordplay in Matthew 7:13 that discusses the straight door.

You?re allowed to feel grateful for the experience and information shared by the Aramaic tradition. You might find there are more things in heaven and earth, gp, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. We all do. When we take time to reflect, we all feel humbled by the unknowns of scripture, science, psychology, etc ? it feels like every year that passes we change and learn and grow. From Babylon to Persia to Greece to Rome ? who on earth isn?t routinely speaking a language out of Babylon? Who follows messiah and speaks from the treasure of a benevolent heart?

And at the end of each day filled with errors and sagas, we hope to grow toward the Father and be forgiven as we forgive others. The Pharisees and Saducees et al felt they actually knew the Father because they read the oldest scrolls and knew some temple Hebrew. They accused people too. But then Yahshua came humbly, from a little place called Galilee, and he walked with common people (sinners) and spoke of a language that comes from the heart. His story resonates with people. You can speak from your heart in any language you like.

When you read Aramaic and you see the beauty of this language, and parallelisms, and wordplays, and even the mathematical meanings, and you want to share your experience with others who are also dedicated to learning, that is a cool thing that builds community and respect.

I hope you?ll enjoy your visit here and that you?ll continue to learn about the beautiful language that Yahshua used to express his loving heart ? that is the real primacy.
Concerning your 1st post in this discussion:

You act as if you wrote all those words yourself, with no credit given to the original author, or showing the words in quotation. Much of it is lifted from a blog site posting, which has the same exact words, being posted there a few years ago by its author.

And, if you are not the same person who wrote it and posted it over there, and don't have his permission to post those words as if they were your words...then you are breaking US Copyright laws here, as the owner of the article has clearly stated that no one may use the articles content unless there is full and clear credit given to the author and specific direction pointing to the original article's post and website.

Here is the notice on his website. If you are not Mr. Mark Nigro, then you have broken US Copyright law. And if you are him, then you are being deceptive in acting like you don't know him, in our side chat tonight.


? Mark Nigro and uThinkology, 2009-2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog?s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Mark Nigro and uThinkology with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Are you Mr. Mark Nigro? And if not, do you have his permission to post his words on this site, or others? Be honest.

Well, that's a step in the right direction. Now, are you willing to be honest about who you really are? Tell us your name and a bit about yourself. You call us your Brothers, but you act more like a stranger.

You state:

"The point of this forum is Aramaic or Greek primacy, not who i am..."

The purpose of this Forum, explicitly stated, is this:

" Preserve and further the knowledge of Aramaic
Supply an on-line Concordance to the Peshitta
Provide the English-speaking world a tool to study the Scriptures in the Language of our Lord and his Apostles
Correct errors in the several translations of the Peshitta which have preceded this work
Restore access to the Semitic and Jewish background of the New Testament, lost in its translation to Greek and other non-Semitic languages
Have the work published upon completion"

Now, whether or not you wish to tell us who you are is perhaps helpful but not necessary ("To me...").
What is necessary, however, is that you contribute consistent with the explicit rules of the Forum.

I wish that you would. No doubt (Unless you are merely a "Flamethrower"...) you believe that your views are complete and convincing.
Others on this site are not convinced and they are asking for more. You are asking others to refute invective and there is no need to do so.
This site has much to offer the world and it is worth studying for the Knowledge offered, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT IT!

Ask a question, give a Learned Response, let the comments get back to you or not. You want to ask a question about Aramaic? Ask PY or others. Ask about the House of Eleazar? Ask me and I'll tell what I can but it will be under the Rubric of the Forum if I answer here.

That's just the way it is. Now, get busy.

You came here with an agenda, but you started off on the wrong foot when you did, as you came in a critical and judgmental attitude, very unloving and very demeaning in how you projected your opinions in a I'm better than you way. But, I forgive you and hope that you don't know better, can't see it, and that when you see your actions for what they are, you will repent of them and do things differently in the future.

I still don't know what your name is, because it seems that you don't want to say who you really are. Why is that? Are you a person, or are you just letters typed from a keyboard? What is there to hide about yourself?

If you want people to take what you say seriously, or even begin to take the time to consider them, then you are going to have to be more personable and humble and honest. It may be hard to accept that you could be wrong about these things, but the 1st step to truth, is to have the humility that says I may be wrong.

I may be wrong about what I believe concerning the origin of the Eastern Aramaic New Testament, but so far, I have seen no real evidence that has convinced me that it isn't the Autographs in faithful copies, passed down unchanged by God's providence, His words not being lost in translation, or through the mistakes of scribes.

If you can show me, which verse or word in the Eastern Aramaic text, is corrupted, or isn't original as it was written by the Apostles and their helpers in the 1st century, then I challenge you to show it here.

So far, all you have done is give your personal opinions and the standard assumptions that are totally conjecture and not provable at all.

Your opinions may make sense to your mind, but that is not the test of has to be true, period, and it should be able to be proven true as well. Else it is just a personal opinion and belief.

And that's fine...but you haven't presented it as such, and you don't seem to be willing to look closer at the Aramaic text itself to see if there are proofs that the Aramaic is indeed the Original form of the New Testament. We have been doing that here, in many ways...and it keeps showing itself to be authentic.

Again, if you can point out a flaw in the text, or show that the text in any place must be a translation of the Greek text, then show it here. And if you believe that the Ivan Panin Numeric text is the original and perfect form of the New Testament, and proves that the Aramaic New Testament is a translation of a Greek text, then show us why, and how, and which one. Don't just say it is, show it is, if it is.

This will take many months and maybe years...are you willing to do the hard work, or are you just here to throw stones and tell us your opinions and assumptions are right, with no evidence?

Also, on the personal level...I have nothing to hide about who I am and am happy to share a bit of my background and faith with you.

My name is Chuck Hudson, and I'm a Christian, who believes everything that is taught in Holy Scripture, and by the help of The Holy Spirit am led into all Truth, and am enabled to live the Life of The Messiah, not being just a hearer of His Word, but also a doer of it as well.

My 1st experience of the Christian faith was among Protestant Christians, where my Grandparents would take me and my siblings to their gatherings for Sunday School and the following service, where Hymns were sung and a sermon was given about the teachings of the Bible.

This was during the late 1960's and on through the mid 1970's, off and on, when we would visit them pretty regularly.

It was in 1980 that I personally had an encounter with God, at the age of 14, as He spoke to me Himself through His Holy Spirit and led me to His Son, my Lord and Savior. I asked Him to forgive me for my sins and to save me, and He was very gracious to me and did so. I have never been the same person since, and my world view totally changed forever, going from a questioner to a knower. I have a deep and abiding love for The Holy Scriptures, His truth, His Holy Church...His People, and a hope that all people would come to the knowledge of the Truth, and be re-born spiritually by God's Holy Spirit, and live His Life out in a true and right devotion to His will.

If you want to know any particulars about me, I am happy and willing to share the details with you. I'm not your enemy.

I don't hold the attitude with which you came here against you either. I probably shouldn't have been acting like I did also, so please forgive me as well. You have asked good questions and we have answered them with, in my opinion, good answers. I was not an Aramaic primacists when I first came on here, but over time I became more and more convinced.

You keep mentioning "parallelism", instead of "Janus Parallelism" - which is the term I referred to in referencing James 3:18. Is that because you do not understand the meaning of the term "Janus Parallelism?"

If so, that's OK - just ask, and I'll explain it to you. You seem confused, and you don't really understand the significance.

Quote:most of the mistranslations in the Peshitta come from the translators obsessing with wanting to use the secondary meaning of the Aramaic word just to be different and make it say something different than the Greek. That pretty much sums-up everything.

Show us a "mistranslation" or two in the Peshitta text, if you know where they might be. I am not interested in debating your opinions and assumptions, I like to deal with the text itself. Lets do that, if you are able.

Quote:All of you have point-blank disregarded the simple facts of history that show Hellinest Jews were living in Greek provinces, and also the verses that show the majority of converts were Greeks.

No, we just understand that just because these Jews lived in the diaspora, they hadn't stopped using their own language. You seem to think that no Jew outside of Israel could understand their own language.

Hi GP,

Before I show you the Aramaic Janus Parallelism, I'll demonstrate one from English, so you have a background before delving into the Aramaic. Sound OK?

The Janus Parallelism, named after the ancient deity Janus, reflects a "looking backward and forward" aspect when reading a sentence.

[Image: 1logo-janus-thumbnail.jpeg]

The Janus Parallelism in English is below:

"The temple veil he did tear as the flow from his eyes revealed his sorrow."

The word in the middle, in this case tear, has a dual meaning in English (and only in English, not in Aramaic or Chinese.) It can mean "tear" as in the verb meaning to destroy, and as a noun in can mean the issue of water from the eyes when sorrowful.

The word serves as an anchor in the sentence, and like Janus - points backwards in the phrase to one meaning (pointed out in blue), and forward in the phrase to the other meaning (highlighted in green.)

Does that example in English make sense? Here's another one:

"The return to her den is arrived for the sow, the time of cultivation is upon the land."

Again, this example plays on the dual meaning of the English word "sow" which means "female pig/cast seeds".

These examples only work in English, no other language has the same word for each instance above. If these were translated into Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Chinese, the Janus Parallelism would be lost.

Now that you have a better understanding of what a Janus Parallelism is, would you like to see how Jame's 3:18 demonstrates that it could only have been written in Aramaic ?

Hi GP,

Here is how the Janus Parallelism only works in the Aramaic, and this will be my last post on this thread, because your posts are rather lengthy and cover too many topics. You need to stay focused.

"And the fruit of righteousness is sown in shayna (peace/cultivated land) of them that make shlama (peace)." (Aramaic)

As you can see, the term "Shayna" in Aramaic has a dual meaning, creating the "anchor" to the Janus Parallelism. The first meaning points to the first phrase in the sentence, the second meaning points to the latter phrase in the sentence.

In the Greek for this verse, we read:

"And the fruit of righteousness is sown in eyrene (peace) of them that make eyrene (peace)."

You see, the word "eyrene" in Greek cannot fulfill this Janus Parallelism, because it only means "peace" - it has no relation to the first part of the verse. The Janus Parallelism is lost in the Greek translation, as it is in the English or Chinese.

I hope you found this example helpful. This is goodbye from me.

Quote:I'll give you one instance where a single word is 'missing' from the verse of: Philippians 1:7 in the Peshitta. Toward the end of the verse the Greek text has a separate word specifically saying 'ALL' , but the Peshitta does not; the peshitta, as follows, says

Murdock: For thus it is right for me to think of you all, because ye are permanently in my heart, and because, both in my bonds and in the vindication of the truth of the gospel, ye are my associates in grace.

Etheridge: For so it is right for me to think concerning you all, because you are laid up in my heart; and in my bonds, and in the defence of the truth of the gospel, you are partakers with me in grace.

And an examination of the Aramaic text shows this to be the case, the word 'all' is missing. If the one who translated from the Peshitta (as Aramaic Primacists assert) into Greek was drunk at the time, this would be possible, but otherwise there is absolutely no reason in the normal course of translation to add the word 'all' to the Greek text just because one feels like it or wants to emphasize something. The Peshitta does not indicate the meaning 'all' anywhere in its verse.
The reason i use this one example, is because the Peshitta is riddled with examples where words are either missing or were added when compared to the Greek text. And the multiplicity of similar examples qualify to me as mistranslation.

Is that the best example you have? Try another one, as this one is not at all able to prove your argument.

What makes you certain that the Greek scribe didn't add the 2nd "all" as he was translating the Aramaic text?

The Aramaic text doesn't even need the 2nd "all" as it would be redundant in the sentence, since the 1st part of the sentence is addressing them "all", and says so. The "you" at the end, is clearly tied to the "you all" at the start of the verse...and there is not a bit of confusion in the Aramaic text.

Often you will find in a translation, more words to help make the sense (helper words) The KJV for instance has many of these in italics in the original this case the Greek scribe may have thought it proper to add the 2nd "all" as a helper word just to make certain that both instances were shown to be speaking of the same group...and of course they are, as can be clearly seen in the Aramaic text, as well as the Greek...with or without the 2nd helper word "all". If they used italics back then to indicate when a helper word was used and that the word was not in the source text...we would see a bunch in the Greek text, I'm sure, since it is inevitable when translating from one language to another.

It's a literary redundancy in this case, and not needed at "all". I say that the Aramaic text has the original form of the text, and nothing is missing in it at "all".

Do you have a more convincing example of a supposed "mistranslation" in the Aramaic Text, I can look at?

And I was good enough to share a bit about myself, are you good enough to do so as well? You are my Brother, right? I'd like to know a bit about my Brother, if you are. Why hide your identity like this?



When I asked you to find a "mistranslation", as you allege is found in the Aramaic New Testament, I meant just that...a mistranslation of a Greek word into an Aramaic word, which misses the sense or has the wrong word being rendered incorrectly.

Now, either the Aramaic New Testament is the worlds first error free translation of another language, or it is the indeed The Original New Testament Text.

I'm still looking for proof it is a translation of the Greek...and so far (years now), no one can seem to prove it is, by the text itself. They have their assumptions, and opinions, but totally lacking in any substantive textual proof that shows that The Peshitta (Eastern Text), is just a translation from a Greek text.

And...they can't even point out which Greek text would be the source, since it doesn't follow any of them in every place, having some readings of all the various Greek families present in its text. Its text has remained static for nearly 2000 years...while the Greek and Latin text, has gone through various changes and come down in various textual family forms, no one quite sure which is the more original of the bunch.

Not to mention all the English translations of the Greek and Latin is just the nature of translations to have so many variant readings and versions.

There is only ONE version of The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta New Testament...unchanged since the time it was 1st given to the Church of the East by the hands of the Apostles.

And please answer my question in our side chat, about what Greek text Mr. Panin used to come up with his 175 words for the text of Mark 16:9-20. I hope you wont say he constructed his own Greek text, then came up with the number that he says is a miracle, making his own miracle... If you can point me to any one Greek manuscript, that was available to Mr. Panin to count those 175 words...then I would like to know which one it was, so I can check his count.

Here are some that were available during his lifetime.

Elzevir's edition of the Textus Receptus (1624) =166
Wilson (1864) =165
Alford (1874) =166
Westcott and Hort (1881) =172
Weymouth (1886) =167
Nestle (1898) =168
Souter (1902) =166
Nestle (1904) =168
Souter (1910) =168
Huck (1936) =167
Souter (1947) =169

Also, look at vs 8 there in Philippians chapter 1. The Greek text has added the "all" again, where it is not at all needed in context, as it is still speaking of the same "you all" in vs 6. Helper words...would have been in italics if it were done that way back in the 1st century. But, again, nothing is wrong either way, nothing is changed or confused with or without the "all" being present or not.

According to your thinking though, you say that the Greek scribe has to be really drunk to add these two "all"s to the text.

Not at all. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Rather, this is a hallmark of translations actually, you should know, you have been reading them all your life.

Well, I am a believer in the Pentecostal experience as well. It's good to find common ground. I believe that God lead me to the Peshitta. I fought the idea that it was the original or most reliable New Testament text for as long as I could. The Peshitta is at least about as old as the Greek. In the 19th century, some scholars viewed it as equal to the Greek text!

The Peshitta is the basis for the 2nd century Diatessaron, quoted by Aphrahat in the 2nd century, has wordplays and poetry lost in the Greek, it also explains difficult New Testament passages. The Greek New Testament's grammar is also a lot like the Septuagint, showing that it is a literal translation of a Semitic language original. I find polysemy and wordplay to be the strongest evidence for Aramaic primacy. The Greek surely has some wordplay, but nowhere near as much as the Aramaic. You don't hear about a lot of people citing wordplay in the Greek version.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)