09-08-2008, 10:46 PM
Shlama Fr. John and welcome to Peshitta.org,
Firstly I'd like to commend you on your approach, you have patiently stood in the background and considered all the information in front of you before jumping in and voicing your concerns. For someone who belongs to a very traditional church, this is very refreshing to see. You are open-minded and willing to consider the case of our brethren from Mesopotamia, of whom western Christianity has been out of touch for so many centuries.
While akh ograabe has already stated plausible reasons to reconsider your view of the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek text, before I expand on what he stated, I will address your greater concern:
The Aramaic primacy movement is still quite a new one (well in the west), and let's be honest here, change is not easy, and most of us would prefer to avoid it if we could. We're not comfortable questioning and second-guessing ourselves and our beliefs. Can we really get it wrong? Actually, we can, the truth is no one has the right to set anything in stone if they haven't seen the big picture. We Greeks (I'm Greek btw), were so self-assured in our traditions, and then our Aramaic brethren from Mesopotamia & Persia had come and ???ruin our party???, declaring to us: ???Now wait a minute, there's a lot that you westerners don't know!??? But they're right, there is a lot that we don't know. But the Assyrians have the right to present their side of the story, and if we brush them aside without taking what they have to say into consideration, then we are not reflecting the love of our Master.
Paul Younan and the other Aramaic primacists on this forum have focussed on the lay believing folk as opposed to the scholarship circles, and if we have to be brutally honest most of the mainstream Bible scholarship community does not consist of believers anyway. Are most the people who translated the NIV true believers in Messiah? I bet not. Bruce Metgzer, one of the greatest NT textual critics was a liberal, and we trust individuals like him with the word of God?
Although it's still early days for Aramaic primacy, the Peshitta NT is getting more attention in the past few years than in the past few hundred years. So how big are the implications for the future of the Church? In my opinion they could be huge. It's one thing for lay Bible readers, to decide ???we want a Peshitta based NT???, but quite another when it comes to Church leaders, theologians and Bible scholarship. Do we have to start from scratch?
Change is not easy but sometimes it's necessary, we are living closer to the last days than ever before and never before has Church unity been more important than it is now. Change might be necessary in this case but it need not be immediate. We must follow the Spirit, and the Spirit does not always take us in directions we expect, but we must follow in the way the Spirit wants us to follow.
You've expressed interest in learning the Aramaic language, in my opinion if you are in a position to do so or ever get the opportunity ??? take it! This is the language our Master spoke while here on earth, I'm sure if you learn it you'll never look back, you'll never regret it. Maybe the world is not yet ready to get rid of the Greek, but I firmly believe that Aramaic should be compulsory in seminaries & Bible colleges. How can we make no effort to preserve this seriously endangered language? The linguistic legacy of our Master's blessed apostles is on the verge of vanishing off the face of the earth forever, and we're not interested in making an effort to keep it alive although we have the means to do so? SHAME ON US!!! So how badly do we really need the Aramaic? Would you say we're doing good enough with the Greek alone? I honestly don't think so. Yeshua's own disciples often had trouble understanding Him in their native language to boot. How can we think that we can do better with a Greek mistranslation? As the Aramaic NT school develops, I believe we're going be in for even more discoveries, and we'll eventually have to face the possibility for changing our traditions about NT transmission.
As for the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek text, I'm in agreement with ograabe that its definitely not the best Greek text. What really turned me off the Alexandrian manuscripts is a post Paul put up 4 years ago:
Thread: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=705">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=705</a><!-- l -->
That is no joke, that is the Codex Vaticanus one of the earliest complete Greek manuscripts, and it's one of the manuscripts used for the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, every NT translator consults it. Most of these ???eclectic??? Alexandrian manuscripts were found in a monastery trash can, and this explains why. These manuscripts were REJECTED because the translators tampered with the readings. The vast majority of our modern Bibles are translated from garbage! It's no wonder the Greek churches use the Byzantine text, however the Byzantine text isn't free from errors either, and its transmission history doesn't hold a candle to the Peshitta. The Peshitta is the best preserved NT, it was transmitted since the 1st century by individuals who venerated it and feared it with all their hearts. How can I put my faith in a text that a church itself doesn't trust? In a text that was rejected by a church? If it wasn't good enough for them, then how can it be good enough for me?
Firstly I'd like to commend you on your approach, you have patiently stood in the background and considered all the information in front of you before jumping in and voicing your concerns. For someone who belongs to a very traditional church, this is very refreshing to see. You are open-minded and willing to consider the case of our brethren from Mesopotamia, of whom western Christianity has been out of touch for so many centuries.
While akh ograabe has already stated plausible reasons to reconsider your view of the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek text, before I expand on what he stated, I will address your greater concern:
frjdalton Wrote:But does it actually make a large enough difference to *really* matter? ie for most purposes isn't the Greek ok? Why or why not? (No I'm not Greek- I'm Aussie-Irish-German). I'm not trying to be funny here, but trying to understand the implications. Does it matter that much that we need to teach Aramaic at theology schools instead of Greek? In what way? What other impacts should it all have?? Also, since by implication of Aramaic primacy, Greek chiastic structures must therefore be based on underlying Aramaic structures, what other Aramaic structures and worldview issues have been missed by the Greek (ie, global level, not just the 20-30 good single verse examples on this site)...
The Aramaic primacy movement is still quite a new one (well in the west), and let's be honest here, change is not easy, and most of us would prefer to avoid it if we could. We're not comfortable questioning and second-guessing ourselves and our beliefs. Can we really get it wrong? Actually, we can, the truth is no one has the right to set anything in stone if they haven't seen the big picture. We Greeks (I'm Greek btw), were so self-assured in our traditions, and then our Aramaic brethren from Mesopotamia & Persia had come and ???ruin our party???, declaring to us: ???Now wait a minute, there's a lot that you westerners don't know!??? But they're right, there is a lot that we don't know. But the Assyrians have the right to present their side of the story, and if we brush them aside without taking what they have to say into consideration, then we are not reflecting the love of our Master.
Paul Younan and the other Aramaic primacists on this forum have focussed on the lay believing folk as opposed to the scholarship circles, and if we have to be brutally honest most of the mainstream Bible scholarship community does not consist of believers anyway. Are most the people who translated the NIV true believers in Messiah? I bet not. Bruce Metgzer, one of the greatest NT textual critics was a liberal, and we trust individuals like him with the word of God?
Although it's still early days for Aramaic primacy, the Peshitta NT is getting more attention in the past few years than in the past few hundred years. So how big are the implications for the future of the Church? In my opinion they could be huge. It's one thing for lay Bible readers, to decide ???we want a Peshitta based NT???, but quite another when it comes to Church leaders, theologians and Bible scholarship. Do we have to start from scratch?
Change is not easy but sometimes it's necessary, we are living closer to the last days than ever before and never before has Church unity been more important than it is now. Change might be necessary in this case but it need not be immediate. We must follow the Spirit, and the Spirit does not always take us in directions we expect, but we must follow in the way the Spirit wants us to follow.
You've expressed interest in learning the Aramaic language, in my opinion if you are in a position to do so or ever get the opportunity ??? take it! This is the language our Master spoke while here on earth, I'm sure if you learn it you'll never look back, you'll never regret it. Maybe the world is not yet ready to get rid of the Greek, but I firmly believe that Aramaic should be compulsory in seminaries & Bible colleges. How can we make no effort to preserve this seriously endangered language? The linguistic legacy of our Master's blessed apostles is on the verge of vanishing off the face of the earth forever, and we're not interested in making an effort to keep it alive although we have the means to do so? SHAME ON US!!! So how badly do we really need the Aramaic? Would you say we're doing good enough with the Greek alone? I honestly don't think so. Yeshua's own disciples often had trouble understanding Him in their native language to boot. How can we think that we can do better with a Greek mistranslation? As the Aramaic NT school develops, I believe we're going be in for even more discoveries, and we'll eventually have to face the possibility for changing our traditions about NT transmission.
As for the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek text, I'm in agreement with ograabe that its definitely not the best Greek text. What really turned me off the Alexandrian manuscripts is a post Paul put up 4 years ago:
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhay, This most fitting of all footnotes is found in Codex Vaticanus, right at Hebrews 1:3.
amaqestate kai kake, afev ton palaion, mj metapoiei
![[Image: vaticanus.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/vaticanus.jpg)
The translation is "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"
I'm not kidding Akhay, this is not like the Assyrian Mercedes thing. This is for real. This is just wayyyyy too precious! <!-- satisfied: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/satisfied.gif" alt="
Thread: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=705">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=705</a><!-- l -->
That is no joke, that is the Codex Vaticanus one of the earliest complete Greek manuscripts, and it's one of the manuscripts used for the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, every NT translator consults it. Most of these ???eclectic??? Alexandrian manuscripts were found in a monastery trash can, and this explains why. These manuscripts were REJECTED because the translators tampered with the readings. The vast majority of our modern Bibles are translated from garbage! It's no wonder the Greek churches use the Byzantine text, however the Byzantine text isn't free from errors either, and its transmission history doesn't hold a candle to the Peshitta. The Peshitta is the best preserved NT, it was transmitted since the 1st century by individuals who venerated it and feared it with all their hearts. How can I put my faith in a text that a church itself doesn't trust? In a text that was rejected by a church? If it wasn't good enough for them, then how can it be good enough for me?