Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting)
#1
Hello all,

I'm hoping that my concerns are merely the result of my ignorance on the subject matter, but I'm finding a heavy pattern of alleged primacy proofs (and internal ones, to be specific) that either lack any supportable documentation (a problem in itself) or are easily countered through other explanations.

I've become a bit perturbed that no one could answer my legitimate question here (<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3956">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3956</a><!-- l -->), and so I've begun to actually test (i.e. 1Th 5:21-22) some of the allegations behind Aramaic primacy--specifically the ones that would convince me the most--mistranslations, contradictions, and polysemies. With all due respect, let's limit the discussion here to internal evidence.

To state my intentions up front, I'm hoping that I'm completely wrong about everything I'm about to share here, but I want to let you know that the following six (6) AP claims that I've tentatively refuted are the very first six I reviewed. In other words, I'm 6 for 6 in terms of finding significant problems with these claims, which either refutes them altogether, or at least weakens them to the point that they're useless.

That's where my honest and sincere concern is. If you take nothing else from this, and if I'm wrong about everything I say, then at least test it out and see if you can provide documentation for the (internal) primacy proofs that you use to convince others and yourself.

Note: Most of these are copied out of another document of mine, so if certain words or formatting is incorrect, please feel free to contact me for clarification. Also, due to space limitations, I'm assuming that if you are willing to read this, you are already familiar with the Aramaic primacy (AP) claims below.

Claim #1) "With fire everything will be vaporized and all sacrifices will be seasoned with salt." (Mat 9:49) One claim states that the root (mlk) can mean "to salt, season" or on the other hand, it can mean "to destroy, vaporize, or scatter." The AP argumentis that this points to an Aramaic original..." which I might agree makes sense if it could be proven or demonstrated.

Response: There is no evidence to support the alleged secondary meaning of "mlk" as "destroy / vaporize" in Jennings, Payne Smith, or CAL lexicons. These lexicons only give salted, or maybe "scatter," but that doesn't make any sense in the context of the passage, and wouldn't make much difference from the Greek-based English reading.

(These are the only three Aramaic-English lexicons that I currently have, so please feel free to enlighten me to others. I would certainly appreciate it). Furthermore, I don't every find the root "mlk" used in the NT for "destroy / vaporize" (i.e. no cross-references to support this claim). Therefore, there appears to be no evidence to back this claim up. How would that look to a Greek primacist?
Reply
#2
Your wrong... (sorry, I cannot be longer) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
CAL

G
1 to SALT Qum, Jud, Syr, JBA, LJLA.
2 to become salty Syr.
3 to share someone's salt, i.e. dine together BA-Ez, Syr.
4 to SCATTER Syr.

Gt
1 to BE SALTED JLAtg, CPA, Syr.

Dt
1 to treat someone in a familiar way Syr.
Reply
#3
Quote:Claim #1) "With fire everything will be vaporized and all sacrifices will be seasoned with salt." (Mat 9:49) One claim states that the root (mlk) can mean "to salt, season" or on the other hand, it can mean "to destroy, vaporize, or scatter." The AP argumentis that this points to an Aramaic original..." which I might agree makes sense if it could be proven or demonstrated.

Response: There is no evidence to support the alleged secondary meaning of "mlk" as "destroy / vaporize" in Jennings, Payne Smith, or CAL lexicons. These lexicons only give salted, or maybe "scatter," but that doesn't make any sense in the context of the passage, and wouldn't make much difference from the Greek-based English reading.

(These are the only three Aramaic-English lexicons that I currently have, so please feel free to enlighten me to others. I would certainly appreciate it). Furthermore, I don't every find the root "mlk" used in the NT for "destroy / vaporize" (i.e. no cross-references to support this claim). Therefore, there appears to be no evidence to back this claim up. How would that look to a Greek primacist?

mlk does indeed carry the meaning 'vaporize' or 'dissolve away'. Notice Isaiah 51:6 where it speaks of the heavens, that they will 'be dissolved away' (mlk) like smoke.

This root is also used to describe worn out clothing, described in Jeremiah 38:11, 12...'worn out rags' (mlkim).

Another use of mlk is used to describe a sailor, as one who is snipped from land, separated from it by spending a great deal of time at sea.

Every word with the ml marriage root contains this idea of something being snipped or reduced in some way. Now, it is true that the examples I gave are Hebrew words, not Aramaic. But the meanings, from over 10 years of my personal research, are shared by the usage of the same root letters, all pointing to an original concrete action meaning.

In a very real sense, salt (by removing moisture) dissolves away, and conversely, helps certain molecules release to arouse our senses. There are positive and negative connotations to the ml root, from circumcision to dissolving to flavoring, even to sailing.
Reply
#4
Quote:Your wrong... (sorry, I cannot be longer)

Well, please don't let me keep you if you are in such a rush <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> but I'll point out that your answer totally fails to address my post: "There is no evidence to support the alleged secondary meaning of "mlk" as "[u]destroy / vaporize"[/u] in Jennings, Payne Smith, or CAL..." The CAL entry you posted, sir, says nothing whatsoever of "destroy / vaporize," which is the crux of this alleged primacy proof.

Quote:mlk does indeed carry the meaning 'vaporize' or 'dissolve away'. Notice Isaiah 51:6 where it speaks of the heavens, that they will 'be dissolved away' (mlk) like smoke.

Thank you for the response. However, as you duly pointed out, "malach" in Isaiah 51:6 is Hebrew, and the Peshitta Tanakh uses the root "abr" from where we get Hebrew. It seems that the Peshitta Tanakh gives the sense of "passing away," which therefore dissolves any relevant association to the Aramaic root "mlk" in Mark 9:49.

However, you lead me in a good direction, which is that the use of "malach" also appears in Psalm 107:34 - "a land of fruit becomes a salty desert, for the evil of those who dwell in it." Here, the word in Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh is "melchata" and some English versions read "barreness" or even "scorched."

This, therefore, would be a more defensible citation to show that "mlk" in Mark 9:49 could have a secondary meaning of "destroy / vaporize," since both appear in Aramaic Peshitta texts, whereas such correlation doesn't appear in Isaiah 56:6 in the Aramaic text. (The word there is "abr".) Again, the strength of the claim that we are discussing is that the Aramaic would need to have a verifiable secondary meaning that makes the Greek look very clumsy for saying "Everything by fire will be salted" in Mark 9:49.

In conclusion, the secondary meaning claim is still a bit weak for me, and I would like to find better evidence to back such primacy claims. I will be attempting to post the other five claims / examples that were supposed to be included in this post, but instead only this Mark 9:49 claim posted successfully. The website was giving me technical problems and wouldn't let me post the rest.

Thomas
Reply
#5
One would think that with so many examples of potential proofs for Aramaic primacy, it will be more interesting to solidify and research the existing ones, than to find new ones, but at the same time this forum is a forgiving place to present arguments that do not reach schoolarly quality.

As the case of Mark 9:49 is presented here: http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38 , it will need some refinement in order to be convincing.

If we attempt to show that Mark wrote his gospel in Aramaic, we should use an example of a text that was composed by Mark (or Peter) himself, and not a quote from someone else. In this case it is a quote from Yeshua, who most people agree spoke Aramaic. Obviously, the Greek text of this quote must have been translated at least once, by Mark or by someone else.

Judge, mentioned in another thread that:
Quote:There is an old Latin mss that agrees with Paul Younan's rendering of Mark 9:49. Codex Bobiensis IIRC.

Bobiensis: [48] ... ubi ubi ignis non extinguetur et uerum in quo oritur omnia autem substantia consumitur ? [50] bonum est sal ...
My Latin is beginner level, but I haven't seen anyone else try to translate it so I may be excused for questioning the similarity of the readings based on my attempt/guess: where fire isn't quenched, and truly, where it begins every being is consumed

At least, it does speak of destruction and does not mention salt. Doesn't this indicate an alternative translation from Aramaic (or Hebrew) into Greek/Latin? That would suggest the Aramaic versions were interesting and may have been considered original at some point in time.

--
I guess the technical problems are due to the fact that this forum doesn't support unicode, so you cannot write Greek letters.
Reply
#6
Thomas--

I can give you a Set of Meta-Reasons for considering Mark 9: 49 being an Aramaic original. The Analysis of the word(s) will have to come from someone else.

Mark 9: 42 - 50 (RSV):

[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

[43] And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.
[45] And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.
[47] And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
[48] where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
[49] For every one will be salted with fire.
[50] Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltness, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."

I started with verse 42 for a reason: It's a Herod Story. We are invited to think that the following section is connected to 42 since it begins with "And". Is 42 connected to 43+? I tend to think so. Why? The Story from 43 on looks back to something that has already happened, as does 42, which references Herod building the Port at Caesarea with "Millstones of a donkey..." to provide a Safe Haven for shipments (Grain from Egypt) in the face of a bitter famine. The Priests were worried that giving food to people would ingratiate Herod to the people.

The Moffatt Translation has the following for verse 47:

"...better get into God's Realm with one eye..."

Moffatt, especially in Matthew, often uses the phrase "Realm of Heaven" instead of "Kingdom of God" and I believe that this points to an understanding that in some of the Stories, "Realm of Heaven" points to a real, physical place:

Matthew 5: 20 (Moffat):

[20] For I tell you, unless your goodness excels that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never get into the Realm of heaven.

That is, only Priests can get into the "Realm of Heaven".

Moffatt also has a note concerning Mark 9: 49:

"The Greek word [[.....]] literally means 'salted,' the metaphor being taken from the custom of using salt in sacrifices (cp. e.g. Levit, ii. 13; Josephus, Antiquities, iii, 9, 1). "There is fire to be encountered afterwards if not now; how much better to face it now and by self-sacrifice insure against the future" (Professor Menzies)"

Is there any other idea that provides support for this "looking back"?

Luke 9: 59 - 62 (RSV):

[59] To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."
[60] But he said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
[61] Another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home."
[62] Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

With this we can see through the Greek back to something else "in some other language". Something has happened and Jesus has "set his face" towards Jerusalem. Others who claimed support now must March to Jerusalem or turn away. Many do turn away and they will never make it to "The Realm of Heaven". If the salt has lost its flavor, how will you season it? If you put your hand to the plow and look back, you cannot be fit for the "Realm of Heaven".

Thomas, I'm sorry I cannot give the Aramaic Analysis you need here except to point to the Story that could not have come from the Greek. In this case, however, I'm reasonably certain that this Story does indeed "look back" to an event that came before the current narration.

CW
Reply
#7
Quote:One would think that with so many examples of potential proofs for Aramaic primacy, it will be more interesting to solidify and research the existing ones, than to find new ones

Thank you Sestir. A wonderful suggestion, and exactly my point here. While I haven't been able to post the other five examples, I would love to discuss them. Mainly, I am disturbed by the lack of veracity in some of these arguments, and I would be highly interested in more demonstrable primacy proofs--ones that have been tested.

I recognize that takes a lot of work, but considering that some people make monumental claims of scholarly and theological importance regarding the Peshitta Aramaic text, I would like to see some primacy proofs that have been more than just passed around the campfire, so to speak.

If I can find through my simple tools that a Greek word has dual meanings just like an Aramaic word has dual meanings, then there is no way to claim that the Aramaic is superior to the Greek; but rather that the English translator didn't know what they were doing.

Part of my demonstration here with Mark 9:49 was to show that the initial claim of Aramaic primacy sounds good but was built on virtually a fabrication. Granted, we did find one concordance to support the secondary meaning of mlkh in Mark 9:49, but it wasn't easy, to say the least.

Now, if anyone reading this understands the issue here, please feel free to point me in the direction of more certain internal evidence--that which a Greek primacists couldn't look in his dictionary and easily refute. Thanks again all who posted.

Thomas
Reply
#8
Shlama Thomas:
There are four identical lists of the disciples who were chosen as Apostles in Matthew 10:1-5, Mark 3:14-19, Luke 6:13-16, In Acts 1:13 Judas Escariot is not mentioned. The first two lists name Simon the Canaanite. The second two lists call the same person Simon the zealot. There is an apparent discrepancy and contradiction. Simon the Canaanite was not a Jewish disciple. Simon the Zealot was not a Canaanite but a Jewish disciple/Apostle. The Greek New Testament has created confusion. Nevertheless the Aramaic New Testament Peshitta does resolve this discrepancy.

1) Matthew 10:5 [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ynnq Jw9m4w[/font]
......................kananya.....washimon
"and Simon the zealot", because "kananya" is Hebrew for zealot.

The source of Shimon's surname and the reason the Zealot sect used this name can be deduced from the writings of the prophet Zechariah in the Hebrew scriptures.

Zechariah 1:14
"So the angel that communed with me said unto me, cry you, saying, thus says the LORD of hosts; I am jealous (kinayti) for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy (kin'ah)."

...and again in Zechariah 8:2
"Thus says the LORD of hosts; I was jealous (kinayti) for Zion with great jealousy (kin'ah), and I was jealous (kinayti) for her with great fury."

Understand that in English "jealous and zealous" are synonymous. The word "kananya" has been mistaken by the Greek New Testament copyist for "Canaanite". If the Apostle Shimon haKananya, as a fervent Zealot used the Hebrew surname and disdained even the Aramaic, how much greater contempt did he have for Greek? It would appear that the Greek copyist had little understanding of the First Century Hebrew/Jewish world view.

2)Mark 3:19 [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ynnq Jw9m4w[/font]
................kananya......washimon
"and Simon the zealot", because "kananya" is Hebrew for zealot

again "kananya" has been mistaken by the Greek copyist for "Canaanite".

3) Luke 6:16 [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0nn= 0rqtmd Jw9m4w[/font]
.................tanana.....damatakra......washimon
"and Simon who is called the zealot", because "tanana" is Aramaic for zealot

4) Acts 1:13 [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0nn= Jw9m4w[/font]
................tanana......washimon
"and Simon the zealot", because "tanana" is Aramaic for zealot

The resolving of the above example is straightforward to me in that the Peshitta New Testament was first written accurately in Aramaic and the Greek copyist mistook the Hebrew word "kananya" for Canaanite. The word for Canaanite in Matthew 15:22 is spelled [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fyn9nk[/font] "cananita". This is a different spelling, as can be seen.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#9
Thomas Wrote:
Quote:Your wrong... (sorry, I cannot be longer)

Well, please don't let me keep you if you are in such a rush <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> but I'll point out that your answer totally fails to address my post: "There is no evidence to support the alleged secondary meaning of "mlk" as "[u]destroy / vaporize"[/u] in Jennings, Payne Smith, or CAL..." The CAL entry you posted, sir, says nothing whatsoever of "destroy / vaporize," which is the crux of this alleged primacy proof.

Quote:mlk does indeed carry the meaning 'vaporize' or 'dissolve away'. Notice Isaiah 51:6 where it speaks of the heavens, that they will 'be dissolved away' (mlk) like smoke.

Thomas

True that scatter is not the same as 'destroy'.
Still, I believe Marc 9:49 contains a wordplay which only works in the Peshitta.

"Every sacrife shall be salted with salt" does not show up the wordplay. And the Greek lacks it too.

In Dutch, it happens to work more or less the same. The verb can mean as 'salt(ing)' as well as 'disperse/sprinkle'' (sorry does still not work in English, as 'scattering salt' makes no sense).

There are hundreds of wordplays existing only in the Syriac Aramaic. The same applies to Hebrew. The OT is FULL of wordplays and gems, but the Greek Septuagint lacks it. Why, wonder why?

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#10
Quote:True that scatter is not the same as 'destroy'.
Still, I believe Marc 9:49 contains a wordplay which only works in the Peshitta.

Thank you, and perhaps I will be more interested in wordplays if I can get past my main objective now: but I presently exclude wordplays as solid proof for Peshitta primacy, simply because from a logical standpoint a scribe could--if knowledgable enough--invent Aramaic wordplays as he translated from the Greek into Aramaic.

As unlikely as it may seem--especially if you claim to have hundreds of examples from the Peshitta manuscript --it is still a possibility that a scribe (maybe like Luke) could have invented wordplays from Greek into Aramaic, if he knew the language enough. Consider it "artistic flair," or like targumming from one language into another.

We know that the apostles didn't quote the Tanakh (OT) verbatim in many cases, so they were apparently in the habit of targumming from pre-existing texts. What would necessarily keep them from inventing Aramaic puns and wordplays while translating from another language to form the Peshitta NT?

Again, I'm simply presenting the logical possibilities, and the reason why I prefer to analyze any internal evidence that necessarily suggests that the Peshitta came before the Greek manuscripts. I'm interested in authority right now.

But yes, if you claim to have hundreds of wordplays, please feel free to convince me and send me some in a personal message. I would be grateful for those that you deem convincing, with all sincerity. Thank you.
Reply
#11
Thomas Wrote:
Quote:True that scatter is not the same as 'destroy'.
Still, I believe Marc 9:49 contains a wordplay which only works in the Peshitta.

Thank you, and perhaps I will be more interested in wordplays if I can get past my main objective now: but I presently exclude wordplays as solid proof for Peshitta primacy, simply because from a logical standpoint a scribe could--if knowledgable enough--invent Aramaic wordplays as he translated from the Greek into Aramaic.

As unlikely as it may seem--especially if you claim to have hundreds of examples from the Peshitta manuscript --it is still a possibility that a scribe (maybe like Luke) could have invented wordplays from Greek into Aramaic, if he knew the language enough. Consider it "artistic flair," or like targumming from one language into another.

We know that the apostles didn't quote the Tanakh (OT) verbatim in many cases, so they were apparently in the habit of targumming from pre-existing texts. What would necessarily keep them from inventing Aramaic puns and wordplays while translating from another language to form the Peshitta NT?

Again, I'm simply presenting the logical possibilities, and the reason why I prefer to analyze any internal evidence that necessarily suggests that the Peshitta came before the Greek manuscripts. I'm interested in authority right now.

But yes, if you claim to have hundreds of wordplays, please feel free to convince me and send me some in a personal message. I would be grateful for those that you deem convincing, with all sincerity. Thank you.

Hi Thomas,

Why would scribes invent wordplays while translating from Greek? Whynot into Latin or another language?

But as to your request, I don't have a compiled list of wordplays, this forum is full of it, if you use google or bing on site:peshitta.org/forum and search for wordplays.

Our Lord, uses the same intelligence and the same thumbprint when he inspired the book of job or Psalms and others. They are full of wordplays. (Again, lacking in Greek, which clearly is a translation and the Greek looks for 90% like the 'koine' Greek of the NT)

This thumbprint can only be seen in the Aramaic NT portions we have. True, these are adapted to the Syriac language (or as the Assyrian/Syrian odessa dialect) but a lot of it is still working, like for instance when Jesus said: "Do not give the holy things to dogs..." it seems to be that the wordplay ALSO says: "Do not hang earrings on dogs, nor throw pearls to swines..."
The connotation with 'hang... earrings' can be verified using the Aramaic Targum, where earrings are written this way and 'look like' holy (qudsha)
You won't find a dictionary (like CAL) which confirms this wordplay as the word for 'holy' simply means just that in Syriac lexicons, so here you have an example, where no (A)Syrian scribe would add such a wordplay which would be foreign to his own language.

About the other wordplays, if they willfully added them; I consider that as tampering with the Text.
Reply
#12
Distazo, terrific reply. Great points. I'm probably not going to ignore the wordplays indefinitely, but just initially as I search for more of the convincing proofs. And I believe that I've come across some of these last night as I read back through Christopher Lancaster's primacy proof documents.

And one such proof, which I examined last night and today is the issue of "hanging earrings on dogs" in Mat 7:6, which you just mentioned--both as a semi-split word and as a wordplay. My interest is primarily on the semi-split word aspect--namely, that there are either dictionaries or other ancient sources (Targums) that attest to a double-meaning of qudsha.

Now, I admit that I didn't look this up myself yet, because I read it in Christopher Lancasters primacy proof article last night. But he did a decent job because he included screenshots of dictionary and lexicon entries; and furthermore, as you pointed out, he included testimonies from the Targums / Tanakh. That is what I call "doing your homework."

I then checked the Greek words through my simple dictionaries to make sure that didn't offer the same double meaning, and they didn't. For the present time then, I feel secure about Matthew 8:7 as a legitimate primacy proof (and the wordplay a nice enhancement).

On the first "split word" document, Christopher Lancaster goes so far as to show which Greek manuscripts (not just English) have a certain reading; and that is huge. But like all people, he is prone to errors, as I found that he made a whole long dissertation on "hate or put aside - Luke 14:26".

Come to find out that his whole premise is built on an error, as he cites the completely wrong Aramaic word to build his argument. (He cites "s-n-a" (sone) when the actual word is "s-b-r" (sebar) or "hope.") He was trying to say that the Greek mistranslated from "sone" but this isn't possible because "sone" isn't even in the Aramaic text.

Lamsa apparently did the same thing when he claimed that Luke 19:17 should read "ten talents" instead of "cities." Sounds great contextually, and even harmonizes with Matthew 25:16, but sadly it seems that he completely misread the Aramaic text in Luke 19:17, which clearly says karkey (cities) and not kakrey (talents). These words may look similar, but they are different roots, and I could make out the difference when looking at the Khabouris codex.

What an enourmous letdown and disappointment. And Paul Younan even admitted to falling into this same mistake (<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1653&hilit=talents">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1653&hilit=talents</a><!-- l -->)--I assume from following Lamsa's translation on this. That is what motivated me to begin this discussion--both to find these things out for myself, and to encourage others to test, test, test.

Think of it as a refining process. Hopefully there's some gold lying beneath a lot of the "dirty" claims in Aramaic primacy, but I want to have an open mind to the truth either way. Thanks again for your responses.
Reply
#13
distazo Wrote:Why would scribes invent wordplays while translating from Greek?

Because Yeshua spoke Aramaic and because they may have believed that he used wordplays frequently. If this happened say between 260 and 300 CE, in Edessa or Antioch, couldn't they have had sources beside the four gospels that documented wordplays in Aramaic?
Reply
#14
sestir Wrote:
distazo Wrote:Why would scribes invent wordplays while translating from Greek?

Because Yeshua spoke Aramaic and because they may have believed that he used wordplays frequently. If this happened say between 260 and 300 CE, in Edessa or Antioch, couldn't they have had sources beside the four gospels that documented wordplays in Aramaic?

Still, that is tampering. I don't think it is possible to know which wordplays were used, after 200 years. It is very likely they, as the apostles could write (Acts 15 also shows that), simply wrote down what Yeshua said.

The sample where I wrote about 'do not hang earrings to dogs' even does not work in Syriac/Assyrian dialect. So, no scribe could have 'inserted' that willfully.
Reply
#15
Quote:Still, that is tampering. I don't think it is possible to know which wordplays were used, after 200 years. It is very likely they, as the apostles could write (Acts 15 also shows that), simply wrote down what Yeshua said.

The sample where I wrote about 'do not hang earrings to dogs' even does not work in Syriac/Assyrian dialect. So, no scribe could have 'inserted' that willfully.

Distazo, would you mind sharing your understanding of the origin of the Peshitta text, as I'm curious to see how it compares. I've heard some say that the Peshitta came "directly from the apostles' hands (or their disciples') to the Church of the East sometime between 80-100CE.

Others, like Steve Caruso, I believe, say that the Edessan Syriac was an Eastern dialect and didn't come until about 200CE, so the Peshitta could not have been the original autograph or even close to it. If you'd like to share some insights I'd be appareciative.

Thomas
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)