Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Basic questions about Peshitta primacy
#1
Good evening, Friends!

I have downloaded the Gospels and Acts from the archives at peshitta.org, and I have enjoyed exploring these with the lexicon tools close at hand. The subtext is beautiful, and it has been delightful to rediscover the experience of the Rissen Meshikha in a language that restores it to the Abrahamic tradition.

I hope you will forgive my ignorance in the following questions, but studying this text and following the dabate over primacy has churned up some confusion. I will be grateful for any light you might share with me in this.

1] The Greek text of the Gospel attributed to Luke is addressed to a person called Theophilus, which I always liked to think of as a poetic way of saying "Lover of God." The Aramaic text uses the word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]fypw0t[/font], "Tawpeela," which doesn't seem to mean anything in Aramaic. The peshitta.org lexicon translates it as Theophilus, and the CAL doesn't seem to contain an entry for this word, lexeme, or root. If Luqa wasn't writing in Greek, why is the recipient's name a translation of a greek word?

2] Greek primacists make a big deal about the idea that Koine Greek in the first century was analagous to English of today: the trade language of the "civilized" world. I understand that this is a Eurocentric view - that God chose a language for his message that the Western world could understand (and we are supposed to ignore everything east of Pax Romana). However, it seems that most of Paul's writings are addressed to churches in the Western world, and it makes sense for him to compose these messages in Greek. What is the reasoning for Paul to use Aramaic?

Again, I am very grateful for your work in this endeavor, and I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.

Warm Regards,
john paul
--
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://beardedbaby.net/">http://beardedbaby.net/</a><!-- m -->
--
"Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts, which are the leadings of GOD." - London Yearly Meeting Advices, 1964
Reply
#2
Hi John,

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your kind words.

John Wrote:If Luqa wasn't writing in Greek, why is the recipient's name a translation of a greek word?

Here is an epistle (dated June 7, 2004) from a bishop of the Church of the East by the name of Meelis (Aramaicized form of "Miles", of Latin origin meaning "soldier") to another bishop of the Church of the East by the name of Gewargis (Aramaicized form of "Georgos", of Greek origin meaning "farmer").

http://www.zowaa.org/news/news/assyrian/pr1.pdf

Here you have a guy with an Aramaicized Latin name writing to another person with an Aramaicized Greek name. Much the same as Luqa (Aramaicized form of a Latin name) writing to Tawpeela (Aramaicized form of a Greek name).

What language is above epistle written in? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Is it not Aramaic, because these two people have Aramaicized Latin and Greek names?

John Wrote:I understand that this is a Eurocentric view - that God chose a language for his message that the Western world could understand (and we are supposed to ignore everything east of Pax Romana).

That's an excellent summary of the main obstacle we as Aramaic primacists face, and I thank you for your fairness.

John Wrote:However, it seems that most of Paul's writings are addressed to churches in the Western world, and it makes sense for him to compose these messages in Greek. What is the reasoning for Paul to use Aramaic?

Another excellent question.

There are several valid reasons why Paul may have written to these communities in the Aramaic language:

(1) The congregation was made up of mostly Aramaic-speaking people, even though the surrounding population was Greek-speaking. You find the same thing happening in immigrant populations today, that tend to congregate in the same general locations within highly-populated urban areas. In Paul's time, we know that the early church was made up mostly of Jews and other Aramaic-speaking peoples, like the Syrians (Arameans.)

(2) Paul only knew enough Greek to get by, but was much more comfortable in his native Aramaic tongue (he was a Pharisee and deeply educated in the language, as well as Hebrew.) In order to have attained the social and religious standing he was in, he would have been required to be very fluent in Aramaic and in Hebrew.

(3) It was probably the universal language of the Church at the time, much the same way Latin was in the European church before the Reformation. We have clues in the Greek NT itself, which preserves some of Paul's Aramaic words (Abba, Maranatha, etc.)

It is worth noting that even today, the Patriarch of the Church of the East issues several epistles each year in Aramaic to the world-wide church. These epistles reach the Middle East, Russia, India, Europe, the United States, Australia.....and yes, even Greece.

Even though the Indian churches speak absolutely no Aramaic, they receive the letters in the original Aramaic. Someone there (a priest, bishop, deacon or whatever) translates it into the local Indian tongue.

This very well may have happened with Paul's letters.

Take care.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Hi John,

John Wrote:Thank you for your prompt reply! In America, the problem of Occidentalcentric history and culture is even more pronounced, and I understand how difficult it is to challenge the deeply rooted psychology that America and the West are the centers of civilization and culture.

I agree and have noticed it as well, having been born here myself.


John Wrote:(3) Having lived in urban areas, it is easy to see the clustering of populations that share a language and culture. I can readily imagine the Aramaic speakers forming cloistered communities abroad. If this is the case, who was the audience for the Greek Septuagint?

Actually, there was no intended audience for the LXX. It was a project to render the Hebrew Bible into Greek at the behest of the Hellenistic emperor Ptolemy II.

Jews had no need for a Greek bible - the same way Muslims have no need for an English Koran. How many synagogues today use the Septuagint? (or even an English translation, for that matter?)

All of them use the original Hebrew and Aramaic text (just as they always have.)

Quote:(4) I have not confirmed this in my own study due to the language barrier, but many Greek primacists point to the Greek NT's use of the Septuagint as the authoritative scripture to prove that the NT originated in Greek. What source does the Peshitta use for its quotations from the Tanach?

A very complex topic that we have delved into quite a bit here. For starters, see the F.A.Q. forum entry: http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=706
--
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://beardedbaby.net/">http://beardedbaby.net/</a><!-- m -->
--
"Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts, which are the leadings of GOD." - London Yearly Meeting Advices, 1964
Reply
#4
Sorry John, I inadvertantly edited your post instead of replying to it! <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Thanks again!
Paul Younan Wrote:Sorry John, I inadvertantly edited your post instead of replying to it! <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->

That's okay - you included the relevant points, answering them again with grace and speed. ;^)

I will likely come back with more questions as I continue to study this beautiful text.
--
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://beardedbaby.net/">http://beardedbaby.net/</a><!-- m -->
--
"Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts, which are the leadings of GOD." - London Yearly Meeting Advices, 1964
Reply
#6
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0nwygl[/font]

Reading the gospel with my daughter at bedtime, I stumbled over a form of this word, which is translated as "Legion." The story at the beginning of Marqus Chapter 5 has always been one of my favorites, and has become a favorite also of my daughter's. When I came upon this word, it looked like at first glance a good case for the Greek primacy people, because it is obviously etymologically linked to the same word in Greek.

Searching the lexicon, I noticed the only other references of this root in the Gospels were Luqa 8:30 (the same story), and Mattai 26:53, in which Yeshua refers to the angels of God as "legions." CAL made it clear that [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0nwygl[/font] was indeed a word in Aramaic at some time. I'm interested in the etymology here; was it borrowed from the Greek, or does it have a root in common?

--

I've been reading Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution by Andre Trocme, a pastor known for giving refuge to Jews durring the holocaust and helping them evacuate from Germany. I have been very inspired by Trocme's thesis that the core of Yeshua's message was the reestablishment of the Jubilee. I thought others here (particularly Andrew Gabriel Roth) might also be interested in this thesis, and the beautiful way in whcih Trocme explores this idea. I am curious to hear your reflections on this.

Blessings!
john paul
--
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://beardedbaby.net/">http://beardedbaby.net/</a><!-- m -->
--
"Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts, which are the leadings of GOD." - London Yearly Meeting Advices, 1964
Reply
#7
Hi John,

Jesus and the rest of the Jews in Israel lived under Greek and Roman military occupation and domination. Greek and Latin words crept into their Jewish Aramaic dialect as a consequence of this domination and oppression.

This is like the situation today in northern Iraq, where the Assyrians live under Kurdish and Arab military occupation and domination. Kurdish and Arabic words have crept into the Assyrian Aramaic dialect as a consequence of this domination and oppression.

The last great military leader of the Assyrians lived during WWI. He bravely defended the Assyrians against Turkish onslaught. He was called "Agha Petros." (see http://www.assyrianworld.com/famous_assy...yrians.htm and http://www.zyworld.com/Assyrian/Agha%20Petros.htm)

As you may know, the word "Agha" is of Kurdish origin, and it means "general~chief" in a military sense. One may wonder why an Assyrian Christian general in WWI was called by the Kurdish title of "Agha", especially when there are plenty of native Aramaic terms for "general" or "chief."

The answer lies in the dynamics of loan-words, especially within minority groups that are oppressed and subjugated militarily and socially by a different culture. The dynamics of Kurdification at work today in Northern Iraq are the same dynamics of Hellenization that were at work in Jesus' 1st-century Israel.

That we see Greek and Latin loan-words in the Aramaic NT is a testament to that fact. It assures us that the Aramaic NT was born in that milieu. From an Aramaic primacy standpoint, I thank Almighty God everyday that there are Greek and Latin loan-words in the Aramaic NT.

If someone pointed me to a supposed document written in Aramaic in Northern Iraq last year, and that document did not have Kurdish loan-words in it - I would immediately suspect it was a fraud. Because Aramaic as spoken today in Northern Iraq has Kurdish loan-words in it.....how could it not?
Reply
#8
Having reached the book of Acts in my study of the Peshitta, I found another point of confusion with regard to the Aramaic. Your guidance to this point has been very helpful to me.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0y=srkw0[/font]: "Eucharist"

I'm not sure what to make of this. "Eucharistos" in Greek means "grateful, thankful," and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for Aramaic speakers to borrow this word to describe what became a defining act in Christian worship, which the Church of the East still calls Qurbana.

Eucharistos seems like it would be a technical term that would emerge in a Greek-speaking community to describe the Qurbana, and a term that would be meaningful only to a Greek-speaking audience.

Luqa also uses the name Petros to describe Keepa sometimes (I understand that both mean "Rock." How could he get away with this in an Aramaic-speaking community? I expect that words associated with war and trade would creep into the language, but here it seems as though Luqa's vocabulary in Greek is stronger than his Aramaic.

My other question pertains to the verses which contain linguistic explanations, such as Acts 1:19. If the tongue of Urishlim was Peshitta Aramaic, why is there any need for interpretation? There are many examples of this in the Peshitta.

I hope you will forgive my ignorance in this; I have been steeped in the tradition of Western primacy, and I want to get a grip on this.

Thanks again for your help!
--
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://beardedbaby.net/">http://beardedbaby.net/</a><!-- m -->
--
"Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts, which are the leadings of GOD." - London Yearly Meeting Advices, 1964
Reply
#9
Shlama Akhi John,

John Stephens Wrote:[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0y=srkw0[/font]: "Eucharist"

I'm not sure what to make of this. "Eucharistos" in Greek means "grateful, thankful," and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for Aramaic speakers to borrow this word to describe what became a defining act in Christian worship, which the Church of the East still calls Qurbana.

In the Aramaic text of Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7, the Aramaic word "Eukaristia" (of Greek origin) is used as a name for the bread that is broken during the "offering" ("Qurbana") and not of the celebration itself.

In fact, the usage of the word in the Aramaic of both Acts 2:42 and 20:7 is purely an Aramaic phenomenon - the Greek text does not contain this word in those verses. So the Aramaic text here is independent of the Greek text.

Having established that, there would be no way in the world that someone composing in Greek would have written "breaking the celebration".

At some point in time, the Greek word for "celebration" ("Eucharistos") came to be adopted by the early Aramaic-speaking church for the actual bread itself - but not the act of breaking it.

John Stephens Wrote:Eucharistos seems like it would be a technical term that would emerge in a Greek-speaking community to describe the Qurbana, and a term that would be meaningful only to a Greek-speaking audience.

Right - but the act of "Offering" is never called "Eucharistos" by the Aramaic-speaking church. It is called "Qurbana." Sacrament is "Raza" (the word for "mystery", used in the Prophet Daniel, etc.)

John Stephens Wrote:Luqa also uses the name Petros to describe Keepa sometimes (I understand that both mean "Rock." How could he get away with this in an Aramaic-speaking community?)

How could Paul get away with calling him "Keepa" to the supposedly Greek-only speaking churches in Corinth and Galatia?

This is a non-issue. My Grandmother's name was "Elisho", but she adopted the name "Alice" when she moved here to the States. She was referred to by both names within the community.

Likewise, my mother's name was "Qinno" - but she went by "Mary." My Father was "Shimon", but he went by "David." I could go on, but I think you get my point.

John Stephens Wrote:I expect that words associated with war and trade would creep into the language, but here it seems as though Luqa's vocabulary in Greek is stronger than his Aramaic.

Have you examined the Greek texts of Luqa 1:15 and wondered about the origin of the word "Sikera" used there for "Strong Drink?" Or the "Pascha" (notice - not "Pesach") of Luqa 2:41? "Korin" in Luqa 16:7? "Mammona" in Luqa 16:9? "Beelzebub" of Luke 11:15? "Satana" (notice - not "ha-Satan") of Luke 10:18?

Are those names of monetary units or names of the ranks of soldiers? If not, why are these Aramaic loan-words in the Greek versions of these Luqan verses?

John Stephens Wrote:My other question pertains to the verses which contain linguistic explanations, such as Acts 1:19. If the tongue of Urishlim was Peshitta Aramaic, why is there any need for interpretation? There are many examples of this in the Peshitta.

The tongue of Urishlim is not the same tongue of the Peshitta (c.f., Marqus 14:70)

John Stephens Wrote:I hope you will forgive my ignorance in this; I have been steeped in the tradition of Western primacy, and I want to get a grip on this.

Thanks again for your help!

Any time. Take care.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
Again, I appreciate your loving guidance.

Would you say that Peshitta Aramaic is closer to the dialect of Galeela, Urishlim, some other dialect spoken at the time, or something that emerged soon after? The reason I ask this is that there are interpretive phrases following presumptive instances of Galilean Aramaic; Marqus 15:34 provides us with an example of this, and only one word is different in the interpretive phrase.

Are there other examples of this phenomenon in the text?
--
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://beardedbaby.net/">http://beardedbaby.net/</a><!-- m -->
--
"Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts, which are the leadings of GOD." - London Yearly Meeting Advices, 1964
Reply
#11
Shlama Akhi John,

Jesus and most of the Apostles grew up in the area of the Galilee and Samaria.

As you know, the northern ten tribes who formerly inhabited the Galilee were taken captive to Assyria (II Kings 15:29, II Kings 17:6, II Kings 17:23).

Then the King of Assyria settled Assyrians and Babylonians in the Galilee and Samaria (II Kings 17:24)

The people whom we call "Samaritans" and "Galileans" are in fact, Assyrians and Babylonians. The kings of Assyria had a policy that when people rebelled against them, they were relocated to a different part of the empire - and Assyrians were settled on their lands. This prevented any future rebellions.

Jesus and the Apostles grew up in the Galilee and in the northern parts of the holy land, where Assyrians and Babylonians (i.e., the hated "Samaritans and Galileans") lived.

They spoke with an accent like Assyrians, among whom they lived. This is why Keepa's speech was recognized in Jerusalem (which was not re-settled by Assyrians.)

The Aramaic of the Peshitta reflects the Aramaic of Assyrians because these people lived among Assyrians and spoke like them.

Take care.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
There is something that can be added to it.

Matth. 4 : 15 "...Galilee of the Gentiles -"
Matth. 26 : 69 "...You also were with Jesus the Galilean."
Reply
#13
Ivan Pavlovich Ostapyuk Wrote:There is something that can be added to it.

Matth. 4 : 15 "...Galilee of the Gentiles -"
Matth. 26 : 69 "...You also were with Jesus the Galilean."

"Galilean Gentiles" = Assyrians (cf., 2Kings 15:29, 17:6-24)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)