Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do you believe in Aramaic Primacy for ALL NT books?
#1
I was talking to a friend online, about this web site. He's Syrian Orthodox, and naturally believes in the importance of Aramaic. And we both were talking how much we like this site.

Anyway he mentioned however that the people "over there" (peshitta.org) seem to believe that all the Books of the NT were written in Aramaic first (Which he obviously thought was too extreme).


Anyway I decided to have a thread on this and ask "How much of the NT do you think Aramaic primacy applies to?" (Primacy in the more strict sense of the first written text and not the more general sense of showing which language the author may have been thinking in originally). Would it cover just the books originally received in the Peshitta, or would it also apply to those other books not found in origianlly in the Peshitta, like Revelation that the were in the Syrian Orthodox canon?
Reply
#2
Shlama oozeaddai,

I believe that just as much of the NT was originally written in the language of Jesus, as was:

(1) the OT written in the language of Moses.
(2) the Quran in the language of Mohammed.
(3) the Theravada written in the language of Buddha
(4) the Avesta written in the language of Zoroaster

If you know of any religion whose scripture is written in any other language other than the one spoken by the founder of that religion, I would be very interested in hearing about that religion! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama oozeaddai,

I believe that just as much of the NT was originally written in the language of Jesus, as was:

(1) the OT written in the language of Moses.
(2) the Quran in the language of Mohammed.
(3) the Theravada written in the language of Buddha
(4) the Avesta written in the language of Zoroaster

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

lol. Yeah its my general opinion that too. Although my Syrian friends cautiousness made me think. And I also noticed or thought of similar things to that one gentleman who posted the thread on the gospel of Luke (where he thought there were names etc. which might support some Greek primacy claims).


And one thing that got me to thinking in particular are some scribal notes, which are in (I think) the Peshitto. Speaking specifically I have two Bibles from Lamsa. One is the familar, "Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text". And the second one is the "the Modern New Testament, from the aramaic, Deluxe Study addition".


Anyway the second book, has these scribal notes at the end of every New Testament book (which I recall LAmsa says come from the western syrian canon) Anyway they say different things. While I think they fit Aramaic primacy pretty wel sometimes they will mention things. Like the caption at the end of the Gospel of John, says "Completion of the Holy Gospel, the announcement of John the Evangelist; which he uttered, in Greek at Ephesus"


Anyway if some of those captions are true. Then that would also mean that in some books the Greek might also be important. So you could have a situation, John, Peter, or Paul is thinking in Aramaic. But speaking to people in Latin or Greek, then there is a transcipt made of that speech. In either Greek or perhaps back into Aramaic.


Anyway as much as I support Aramaic primacy. I think its fair to think that there are layers or levels of primacy. Something like the words of Jesus defintely are purely Aramaic. But something like a Gospel or epistle that was sent to largely converts, could or would later in church history. At times appear in a foreign language, or be given in a foreing language. And thus the nature of the document, is a little bit different than something that was thought out and planned in Aramaic, then written in Aramaic only to be later translated.
Reply
#4
Shlama oozeaddai,

Keep in mind that those western manuscript scribal notes (yes, I have seen some of them) also claim (at the beginning of Marqus' gospel) that Marqus wrote his gospel in Rome......IN LATIN.

These were obviously scribal notes written by later hands, especially those of the scribal tradition within the Byzantine realm - they were simply reporting popular Greek-primacist myths about the origins and the places where these books were written.

Church of the East manuscripts (those that are least tampered with) do not contain such wild claims that Mark's gospel was written in LATIN! <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> Not even Greek primacists say that Mark wrote in Latin!

The most important thing from an Aramaic-primact point of view is comparison of the two texts side by side - the translation will stick out like a sore thumb. See all of the examples we have here on the various forums and categories.

Take care.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
"[ Church of the East manuscripts (those that are least tampered with) do not contain such wild claims that Mark's gospel was written in LATIN! <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> Not even Greek primacists say that Mark wrote in Latin!

The most important thing from an Aramaic-primact point of view is comparison of the two texts side by side - the translation will stick out like a sore thumb. See all of the examples we have here on the various forums and categories.

Take care.[/quote]"

Yes and I do appreciate your web site for that. If not for your site, I would only have old books by Lamso and folks like Roco Erico to reference. And I actually have a little of a church of the East background. (I was part of a small church which had occidental bishops who came into a diacese from the pevious turn of the century. Which purpose was to remissionize India. Anyway the local Assyrians in my home city san Jose. The bishop here did not want any new comers, since your patriarch mar Dinkah is trying to work out some kind of re-unification thing with Rome. (which led to a few hard feeling at the time, since then I moved on to the Oriental Orthodox). Anyway my iniatial thought of trying to learn from the Assyrians first hand was cuut short. So this web site is the closest thing I have to that.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)