05-28-2005, 02:10 PM
Dave,
The presbyters in Palestine in the 3rd century were Greeks, part of the Greek church and they were heading the local Semitic church there. That's where you get the "Christian Palestinian Aramaic" dialect - a mixture of Greek and Aramaic, and the language of the books you sent me.
Of course when the Greek Church Presbyters were preaching to the local people, they had to translate to Syriac. The same things happens today in "Palestine" - the language of the Greek Orthodox Church is (obviously) Greek, their liturgy is in Greek, their scriptures are in Greek - but they translate into Arabic for the people (the Palestinians no longer speak Aramaic, even the Christian ones speak Arabic today.)
Remember that this is after the Jews were dispersed and Jerusalem destroyed in 70 AD. The Greek church took over in Palestine and continues to be the dominant church among the Palestinians to this very day. That was the action of the Byzantine empire.
I fully realized what I posted. I didn't post to try and convince you that Palestinian Christians were Aramaic-based in their church - they weren't because they lived under the Byzantine empire where the Greek church was the dominant church before and especially after Constantine.
I posted that so that you would know that even after Meshikha's resurrection, and even after the Jew's dispersion and eviction from the Holy Land - the gentile Christians there still spoke in the "Syriac" you didn't think existed in that area.
And like I proved to you, there are Syriac inscription in Jerusalem in the first century. Syriac existed as a Palestinian dialect before and after the time of Meshikha.
And no, I do not use the Greek as a primary source. The Greek text is my best friend, because it shows internal signs of being translated from an Aramaic source.....with the same readings as the Peshitta. That's how all these examples we have here came about. The Greek text makes my case for me better than I ever could.
I lament, not celebrate, the fact that you do not know these languages enough to fully appreciate these examples. I wish you did. Those who do on this forum know how powerfully convincing these arguments are.
And this has nothing to do with cultural pride. Someone who is racist does not marry a Roman Catholic German/Irish/Shawnee Indian girl.
If Meshikha was a Greek and preached His Gospel in Greel - I'd be a Greek Primacist. If He were a Latin, I'd be a Latin Primacist. If he were a Zimbabwean, I'd be a Zimbabwean Primacist.
But He was a Jew, an Aramaic-speaking Jew. Therefore, I am an Aramaic Primacist. By accident of birth, I happen to speak a modern dialect of this language and by accident of church affiliation I happen to have studied the ancient version from my youth. Don't worry - in a generation or two we'll be all gone and won't be a thorn in your side anymore. You will then only have the Greek Messiah to study, but in the meantime leave me in peace to get this word out while we are still here and still understand this language.
If that makes me culturally biased in your eyes, that's fine with me. Keep in mind I'm not a Jew, I am a Gentile like yourself......and Aramaic is a Gentile language first and foremost.
Compare the Greek and Aramaic, by all means use both if that makes you feel more fulfilled. Nobody is telling you not to study the Greek-based versions. If you take the time to bother to learn the language your Saviour used, you will get to the same place that others who didn't know it got to. Ask Larry or Rev. Bauscher, they were at one point where you are.....with the difference, of course, that they took the time to learn the lanuage their Saviour used to get closer to His word.
If that's at all important to you, do it. If you are content with forever comparing the King James to Murdoch, Lamsa or the Interlinear here.....that's fine too. Don't bother to learn Aramaic, or Greek for that matter. But you will never understand these examples unless you do and this is the wrong place for you....for you will have no appreciation for our discoveries....let alone have anything beneficial to add except for the rare instance that an inquiry of yours will actually lead to another discovery, like who it was who actually named Jesus.
The Greek texts created a contradiction - and because of your hard head we uncovered solid evidence that the mistake crept in because of the Greek mistranslation of an Aramaic gender possessive form that was the same for both masculine and feminine. That was your inadvertant discovery.
Since then you've done nothing but annoy us.....which again makes me wonder why you are here.
The presbyters in Palestine in the 3rd century were Greeks, part of the Greek church and they were heading the local Semitic church there. That's where you get the "Christian Palestinian Aramaic" dialect - a mixture of Greek and Aramaic, and the language of the books you sent me.
Of course when the Greek Church Presbyters were preaching to the local people, they had to translate to Syriac. The same things happens today in "Palestine" - the language of the Greek Orthodox Church is (obviously) Greek, their liturgy is in Greek, their scriptures are in Greek - but they translate into Arabic for the people (the Palestinians no longer speak Aramaic, even the Christian ones speak Arabic today.)
Remember that this is after the Jews were dispersed and Jerusalem destroyed in 70 AD. The Greek church took over in Palestine and continues to be the dominant church among the Palestinians to this very day. That was the action of the Byzantine empire.
I fully realized what I posted. I didn't post to try and convince you that Palestinian Christians were Aramaic-based in their church - they weren't because they lived under the Byzantine empire where the Greek church was the dominant church before and especially after Constantine.
I posted that so that you would know that even after Meshikha's resurrection, and even after the Jew's dispersion and eviction from the Holy Land - the gentile Christians there still spoke in the "Syriac" you didn't think existed in that area.
And like I proved to you, there are Syriac inscription in Jerusalem in the first century. Syriac existed as a Palestinian dialect before and after the time of Meshikha.
And no, I do not use the Greek as a primary source. The Greek text is my best friend, because it shows internal signs of being translated from an Aramaic source.....with the same readings as the Peshitta. That's how all these examples we have here came about. The Greek text makes my case for me better than I ever could.
I lament, not celebrate, the fact that you do not know these languages enough to fully appreciate these examples. I wish you did. Those who do on this forum know how powerfully convincing these arguments are.
And this has nothing to do with cultural pride. Someone who is racist does not marry a Roman Catholic German/Irish/Shawnee Indian girl.
If Meshikha was a Greek and preached His Gospel in Greel - I'd be a Greek Primacist. If He were a Latin, I'd be a Latin Primacist. If he were a Zimbabwean, I'd be a Zimbabwean Primacist.
But He was a Jew, an Aramaic-speaking Jew. Therefore, I am an Aramaic Primacist. By accident of birth, I happen to speak a modern dialect of this language and by accident of church affiliation I happen to have studied the ancient version from my youth. Don't worry - in a generation or two we'll be all gone and won't be a thorn in your side anymore. You will then only have the Greek Messiah to study, but in the meantime leave me in peace to get this word out while we are still here and still understand this language.
If that makes me culturally biased in your eyes, that's fine with me. Keep in mind I'm not a Jew, I am a Gentile like yourself......and Aramaic is a Gentile language first and foremost.
Compare the Greek and Aramaic, by all means use both if that makes you feel more fulfilled. Nobody is telling you not to study the Greek-based versions. If you take the time to bother to learn the language your Saviour used, you will get to the same place that others who didn't know it got to. Ask Larry or Rev. Bauscher, they were at one point where you are.....with the difference, of course, that they took the time to learn the lanuage their Saviour used to get closer to His word.
If that's at all important to you, do it. If you are content with forever comparing the King James to Murdoch, Lamsa or the Interlinear here.....that's fine too. Don't bother to learn Aramaic, or Greek for that matter. But you will never understand these examples unless you do and this is the wrong place for you....for you will have no appreciation for our discoveries....let alone have anything beneficial to add except for the rare instance that an inquiry of yours will actually lead to another discovery, like who it was who actually named Jesus.
The Greek texts created a contradiction - and because of your hard head we uncovered solid evidence that the mistake crept in because of the Greek mistranslation of an Aramaic gender possessive form that was the same for both masculine and feminine. That was your inadvertant discovery.
Since then you've done nothing but annoy us.....which again makes me wonder why you are here.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
![[Image: sig.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/sig.jpg)