Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Theory of History
#1
Shalom, Sh'lema, Sh'lama, Hola, Aloha, hiya, peace <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

This is my understanding of the history of the Peshitta New Covenant writings in comparison to the Greek New Covenant writings and their primacy.

In my research into these things, I have found that many claims are made on both sides, both with evidences and statements supporting each side. I have read information in books from the library, as well as the promotions for either side found on the internet. In looking at these things I have come to the conclusion that the primacy of which one came first is of no dire consequence. My reason for this, is that in researching these manuscripts, I have found that they compliment one another, even as far as where one will lack, the other makes up for. And that pertains to both.

My theory, and yes, it is a theory, is that these writings came into being simultaneously. This is not an argument for compromise, but rather a judgment based upon the manuscripts themselves and their various dates and histories. I am not one to give into the ???oldest is most accurate??? claim. Nor am I one to give into the ???majority is better??? claim either.

Now, my theory is not without history. Common sense knowledge of history tells us that the Jews of that time predominately spoke Aramaic. And this in itself should be proof of its primacy, but it isn???t. For it is also common sense knowledge that people, whether Jew or Gentile, in the Roman empire spoke at least two to three languages. Their first language would be that of their culture (Aramaic for Jews), the second language would have been Greek, as it was the common language of trade and commerce from one region to the next. And a third possible language would have been that of the region in which people were either born or placed, who are of a differing culture and native language. The Romans did have a terrible tendency to relocate people based upon their skills and usefulness for the empire.

In my research, I have found that the oldest Aramaic Peshitta manuscript is from about 450ce. Now, the Khaburis Codex is from about 1000ce, and claims to have been a copy of a much older manuscript from about 100-300ce. As a disclaimer, these dates were found online, even within the confines of the forums as well as elsewhere. And of the Greek manuscripts, and there are tons of them, the oldest I have found, so far, dates to about 100-300ce also. I have found that looking at the dates for any proof of primacy to be rather??? well??? useless.

So how should primacy be established? Since the dating issue puts both runners in a tie, I would have to say, culturally. Salvation is of the Jews. The B???sorah came to the Jews first, and from the Jews to the world. It would be common sense knowledge that anything written from Jew to Jew would have been Aramaic at that time. It is also known from scripture that Shaul/Paul, when entering a new town, would first go to the synagogues and present them with the truth of our beloved Mashi???ach. Not all accepted, not all denied. But it is without argument, that the first believers would have been Jews, Aramaic speaking Jews. Though their various dialects may have differed, in my research I have discovered that the written Aramaic was very compatible from Aramaic dialect to Aramaic dialect. And despite these dialect differences, and slight variations of structure, what was written was solid for any dialect.

In the midst of this Jewish-Aramaic culture of the time, there were Gentile converts, who spoke various other languages. And, like the Jews, spoke at least two to three different languages. I must clarify, that of course not every single person of the time spoke two-three languages, but it was certainly a common thing for those in business, either empyreal or personal/financial, to speak different languages, like Shaul/Paul. It is thought that he spoke different languages because he was a scholar. This is not the case. He was a tentmaker. And as such would have worked in various places throughout the empire, for tentmakers (literally leather workers) would have been employed by the empire on a regular basis. Yes, even religious Jews would have worked for them at the time as well, though I doubt the zealots would have.

Back to the Gentile issue. As the Jewish leaders of the congregations would have received letters, more than likely of Aramaic, they would have had translations made for the Gentile converts. And since Greek was the common language for trade between region to region, it seems only accurate that Greek was this language into which the letters were translated. I know, from research, that Aramaic and Greek are not the only languages of the New Covenant Writings that date from around that time period. There are also Ethiopic, Coptic/Egyptian, and Arabic manuscripts also. And from what I???ve read, even some latin manuscripts. Now, I am not saying that they found whole Bibles in these languages, but rather whole letters of Shaul, a Gospel here, a Gospel there, and other New Covenant letters individually. So it seems to me, that while Aramaic may have been the first language in which these things were written, the Greek certainly followed right there it its footsteps, and, were very closely followed by the other languages into which these manuscripts were sent and were translated.

While I have respect for the Aramaic Primacy, I do not discount the Greek Manuscripts and their value for those learning the New Covenant. If I were made to choose, I would have to say that Aramaic was certainly the first, not based upon dating, but culture and history. However, this ???primacy??? does not pertain to every single letter written by Shaul. I am sure that he had written in Greek also. Historically speaking, and scripturally, not all the people written to were Jews, nor were they Aramaic speaking people. Once again, since Greek was the common language of commerce etc. it would be common sense to realize that the Gentiles who received letters from him would have read a Greek original.

This is where the ???simultaneously??? part comes in. It is quite possible, that since Shaul had with him a companion that would write the letters for him as he dictated, he could have been writing the Aramaic with his own hand, while dictating to his companion for the Greek. It was not uncommon for letters sent to a multi-cultural place or group to be written in the most common languages of those places or groups, usually the Aramaic (Jews) and the Greek (Gentile converts).

This was my theory, and yes, it is a theory. And while I do not have the time or patience to sit here and place every single piece of data and reference, these things are presented based upon real research and investigation of the history. This was not an easy thing for me to configure, for while researching for these findings, I came across Anti-Aramaic sites and Anti-Greek sites. The one thing I have discovered about all these sites, both for and against, is that they, themselves are not necessarily useful for any proof either. They make claims and say that it is historically sound, and yet at the same time, there are sites that do the same exact thing but in the opposite direction. And do you know what is worse about this? They all present proofs and references from various places. Because of these contrasts of references and proofs, these things presented here are merely theory. And though this is a theory, I have researched, and have come to mine own conclusions.

In Yeshua,
Z???ev Yochanan
<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply


Messages In This Thread
A Theory of History - by Yochanan5730 - 06-24-2008, 10:36 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by *Albion* - 06-24-2008, 11:34 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by Paul Younan - 06-25-2008, 12:19 AM
Re: A Theory of History - by enarxe - 06-25-2008, 12:51 AM
Re: A Theory of History - by gbausc - 06-25-2008, 03:14 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by Yochanan5730 - 06-26-2008, 09:13 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by Yochanan5730 - 06-26-2008, 09:44 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by Yochanan5730 - 06-26-2008, 10:27 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by Yochanan5730 - 06-26-2008, 10:45 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by Yochanan5730 - 06-26-2008, 11:11 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by enarxe - 06-26-2008, 11:35 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by Yochanan5730 - 06-27-2008, 01:25 AM
Re: A Theory of History - by Paul Younan - 06-27-2008, 04:19 PM
Re: A Theory of History - by Yochanan5730 - 06-28-2008, 09:36 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)