Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Query in favour of Greek
#3
Okay, that sounds positive that we?re acknowledging the Gospel of Matthew with a probable Aramaic origin. Let?s continue with just the polysemy and mistranslation evidence in the Greek Gospels of Mark and John -- I can continue to omit any evidence of Aramaic wordplay and the like in the Peshitta for the sake of meeting you as you wish:

A few of Bauscher?s examples from the Gospels of Mark and John:
Regarding Mark 7:4, ?The different Greek texts have ?baptize? ? Majority text and, ?wash? ? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (4th cent.). The Aramaic word ?[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Nydm9[/font]? can mean ?baptize?, ?wash? or ?bathe?. Might this account for the Greek variants??

Regarding Mark 7:9, ?Three very old (5th-6th cent.) Greek mss. agree with the Peshitta reading ?that you may establish your traditions?. The other Greek mss. have ?that you may keep your traditions?. The Aramaic root word ?Qam? has both meanings ? ?keep? and ?be established?. Can it be that all of them got their readings from the Peshitta?s Aramaic?"

Regarding Mark 7:34, ?[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Xtpt0[/font]- ?Ethpathakh?, ?Be opened?, is transliterated in all Greek mss. and then translated into Greek. This is just another of many such cases in all known Greek mss. of the Gospels and Acts. The Peshitta has no cases of transliterating Greek phrases with a translation following. What is difficult to account for is that there are any translations of Aramaic into Greek accompanying a transliterated Aramaic word or phrase, assuming the Greek to be the original. There are many more transliterations which are simply left alone; not translation follows, ?Raca?, ?Mammon?, ?Corban?, ?Marantha?, ?Gehenna?, etc. The inclusion of those contained in the Greek beg the question: Where is the original Aramaic? The many other tell-tale Aramaic words ? over two hundred total occurrences in the Greek NT, suggest Aramaic sources which occasionally posed a challenge to a translator, hence the puzzling transliterations: ?Beelzebub?, ?Belial?, Raca?, ?Maranatha?, ?Mammon?, ?Corban?,, all of which are unexplained and untranslated. They are not Greek words. They are all Aramaic ? ?Belial? is Hebrew. So also for the Hellenism ?Satanas?, from the Aramaic, ?Satana?. The LXX always translated the Hebrew ?Ha Satan? with the Greek ?Diabolos?, except in 1 Kings 11:14, where it transliterates ?Satan? as ?Satan? (not ?Satana?) twice. The Greek NT translates the Aramaic ?Satana? with the Greek ?Diabolos? about half the time, and the other half uses the Aramaic word ?Satana? in Greek letters. The Aramaic ?Satana? occurs 36 times in the Majority Greek text in twelve books from Matthew to Revelation!?

See more examples in the Polysemy section of this forum, such as Mark 14:41: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=464">viewtopic.php?f=10&t=464</a><!-- l -->

Regarding John 6:19, ??Yammta? ? (Lake) [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0tmy[/font] is paralleled in Greek by ?Thallsay? ? (Sea), but the Aramaic word for ?Sea? is Yamma - [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0my[/font], very similar to the Aramaic for ?Lake?. These facts point again to the strong probability that the Aramaic text was misread here by a Greek translator. It is highly unlikely an Aramean would mistake the Greek ?Thallasay? qalassh ? (Sea) for ?Yammta? (Lake); the Greek for ?Lake? is ?Limnay? - limnh, nothing like ?Thallasay? ? (Sea).? Indeed, to add to Bauscher?s points here, the Aramaic original becomes all the more probable because the word difference between [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0tmy[/font] and [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0my[/font] is a linguistic subtlety that a native Aramaic speaker would know by applying the distinction in reality (because it is a perspective-based word, as you apply the word to your own perspective looking at the water and the likely perspective of those looking at the water with you). The distinction would not necessarily be known to a writer who is trained in Aramaic (as he is simply sitting at a table staring at paper and more likely to be seeing only a gender distinction in the different spelling of the two words).

Regarding John 11:1, ?It looks like a Greek translator had a problem with the Semitic form of naming a town ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0tyrq 0yn9 tyb[/font]), ?Bethany Town? and the spelling of [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]hwx0[/font] (?Achuah? ? ?Brother?), which apparently was mistaken for [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]htxd[/font] (?D?Khatha? ? ?Sister?) [note Ashuri text in Bauscher book]. The Greek has ?the town of Mary and her sister Martha?; the Peshitta?s Aramaic has ?the brother of Mary and Martha?. ?Town? should not be connected with any word following it, only with ?Bethany?. A very literal reading, disregarding the Semitic use of town as part of the name of Bethany would lead to something like the following sense: ?And a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the town of the brother of Mary and Martha.? That would have been OK, but apparently, the Greek translator misread ?Brother? as ?Sister?, thereby throwing a monkey wrench into the meaning of the verse: ?The sister of Mary and Martha? does not work, so ?sister? must be moved in the Greek text to follow ?Martha?: Hence, ?the town of Mary and her sister Martha?. Please note that the Greek does not really make good sense here: ?Lazarus was from the town of Mary and her sister?? So what? He was their brother! The next verse alludes to that, but the Peshitta makes it plain in verse 1?. It would be a very difficult case to make to say the Aramaic came from the Greek, even if ?sister? were to be misread as ?brother?, which are very similar in Greek; there would have been more than reconstructive surgery going on here. To get ?Lazarus of the town of Bethany, the brother of Mary and Martha? from ?Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha? would be progressive evolution! The translator would have misread the definite article ?thj? as well as ?adelfhj? (?Sister?) and dropped ?authj? (?her?), all three of which are feminine, and made a masculine noun ?brother? out of them. It is triply unlikely that three words would be misread, as opposed to one, as in the other scenario discussed above.? P. 265-266.

Again, see more examples from the gospel of John in the polysemy section of this forum.

--

With regard to your points in the original post regarding the number of scholars that favor the Greek, the ?quality of the Greek?, etc., you can review the posts on this site for rebuttals and clarity on each item, just as the user ?judge? highlighted above. See e.g., <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3746&p=23605#p23605">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3746&p=23605#p23605</a><!-- l -->
See also this article for follow-up study: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com/Research/Peshitta%20History.pdf">http://aramaicnt.com/Research/Peshitta%20History.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Bauscher has written, ?Greek mss. have some grammatical errors and poor word usage. The Peshitta contains no such errors, and yet it has been supposed by Western scholars to be a translation of the Greek NT and the Greek is supposed to be the original!? p. 210. You can find other scholars echoing the same sentiments about the questionable quality of the Greek. And likewise, you can find Greek primacists who feel compelled to admit the quality of the Aramaic Peshitta. Of course, if these Greek primacists took the next logical step and actually admitted Aramaic primacy, what do you suppose they would jeopardize (it is like admitting to errors on your tax forms, and having to go back and re-file every tax return you've ever prepared).

All fields of study reward majorities who harmonize with the established institutions, and only rock the boat carefully. Try to publish articles about creation science today and see if you can get a paid position at a University publishing your research. Go back to the year 1880 and try to publish research about quantum physics and see how much impact you have. Go back to the dark ages and try to publish on the heresies of the Catholic Church and see how far you get. Go back to year 150AD and try to find a single person who wants the Greek scriptures translated into Aramaic. Oh, but you can get paid handsomely the other way around in 150AD -- writing translations of Aramaic scriptures in Greek, because the market demand was high as Christianity was spreading, and Greek was considered the enlightened language. Regarding that website you quoted, I have not found quotes from ?early church fathers? saying the original gospel was written in Greek and that they accepted this without debate amongst one another. Indeed, to say such a thing ignores the origins of the Church of the East! Perhaps that's the point though, division? It looks like your argument was cut & paste from this website, which notably does not provide any citation: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thenazareneway.com/aramaic_primacy.htm">http://www.thenazareneway.com/aramaic_primacy.htm</a><!-- m -->

How about logic? We can readily observe the Greek gospel transliterates the Aramaic Peshitta text routinely, just as the Septuagint does this with the Hebrew Tanakh. How often do men preface their statements, ?because the Hebrews spoke Hebrew,? ?because the Arameans spoke Aramaic?. Or, how many books have you read that have the introduction, "This English book is originally written in English". Notice how often in history English speakers have translated the bible in English, with transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew root words, and then claimed the English as the inspired word of God. It's Churchianity, and the English were not the first to do it.

At the end of the day, the Father in heaven can make the Greek as meaningful as He wishes. If he wanted Aramaic primacy to be crystal clear, it would be written in the sky for all to see, along with an unadulterated torah. If you like, perhaps some of the disciples' letters were written or originally distributed in Greek. Decide for yourself as you examine the polysemy and more. With the strong polysemy evidence showing Aramaic primacy of the gospel, I just hope that Greek primacists do not feel undermined by or divided from Aramaic primacists. We are searching one another's scriptures. Why would anyone want to try to take away our one messiah that anyone else has learned about, because if it is indeed the heart that brings one close to the one messiah to hear his words, who would claim they know more about our messiah from Greek study above Aramaic?

It is natural though that the Aramaic speaking apostles would write the gospel in the Aramaic language of Israel. Does the gospel not quote the messiah saying his words were first given to the lost sheep in Israel? These are cool questions that are fun to debate, and I'm glad you're here...

Quite simply, there is boatloads of evidence for Aramaic primacy, so excellent opportunities abound for fellowship and learning with those who speak and read the same language spoken by [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"](w4y[/font].
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by judge - 02-24-2015, 06:51 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by gregglaser - 02-24-2015, 08:58 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by gregglaser - 02-27-2015, 06:53 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by gregglaser - 02-28-2015, 03:23 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by aux - 02-28-2015, 04:37 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Burning one - 03-01-2015, 10:52 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-04-2015, 01:26 AM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-04-2015, 06:36 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-04-2015, 06:42 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-06-2015, 02:34 AM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by gregoryfl - 03-06-2015, 10:39 AM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by aux - 03-07-2015, 07:23 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by gregoryfl - 03-07-2015, 08:29 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-08-2015, 04:37 AM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-08-2015, 04:42 AM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by gregoryfl - 03-08-2015, 09:00 AM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by SteveCaruso - 03-08-2015, 02:04 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-08-2015, 02:35 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-08-2015, 03:18 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-08-2015, 04:16 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by SteveCaruso - 03-09-2015, 03:27 AM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-09-2015, 12:45 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by SteveCaruso - 03-09-2015, 04:43 PM
Re: Query in favour of Greek - by Paul Younan - 03-09-2015, 05:00 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)