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
#2
Shlama Z???ev Yochanan,

OK. let's see.........which *direction* did the Nazarenes take the Good News of Yeshua, FIRST?

Why is ALL of the poetry, and word plays MISSING in the Greek MSS?

And I'm *NOT* saying that one cannot find Salvation (Yeshua/Yesha) in the Greek to English New Testaments, either.

Z'ev Yochannon, I will not be able to join your/Re'eul's list till late July, or early August. I won't be able to resolve 'the problem' till then.

Shlama, Albion

P.S. George Lamsa used to teach that Sh'aul/Paul was a saddle maker, NOT a tent maker.....not that Paul's occupation really matters now. <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->
Reply
#3
Shalom Yochanan,

I respect the thoughtfulness of your post and there are valid points we can all agree on. Please give thought to the following:

(a) The Greek manuscript tradition is our best friend. We have an immense appreciation for these works, without which it would be much harder to prove the original language of the NT. The scribes, by and large, were very respectful to the original text that lay in front of them and it is because of this that we can ascertain the Semitic reality underneath the Greek skin.

(b) Jews at the time, and today, are a minority in the Aramaic-speaking world. The number of "Gentile" (Semitic, non-Jewish) nations who speak Aramaic are many today, and there were many more back in the time of the New Testament. Arameans, Phoenicians, Mesopotamians (Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandean, Hatran, etc.), Arabs, as well as non-Semitic nations like the Persians and certain Anatolians.....the list goes on and on.

For example, the Apostles and the Edtha (Congregation~Church) spread east of Jerusalem as well as west of Jerusalem. To the east of Jerusalem lay an immense population of Jewish, and non-Jewish, Aramaic speakers. Primarily non-Jewish.

I said that to say this: Aramaic had as much, if not much more, readership among "Gentiles" (Semitic and non-Semitic) as Greek did among"Gentiles".

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#4
Yochanan5730 Wrote:Shalom, Sh'lema, Sh'lama, Hola, Aloha, hiya, peace <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
[..]
In looking at these things I have come to the conclusion that the primacy of which one came first is of no dire consequence.
[..]
In Yeshua,
Z???ev Yochanan
<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Just one note to your post dear brother in Mshikha. Does that mean that you have found no differences between Peshitta and Greek mess which would have practical, pastoral consequences (or theological, as those sooner or later will bear some practicalities)?

Peace,
Jerzy
Reply
#5
Akh Yochanan,

You are an Aramaic primacist and don't know it.

You wrote:

Quote: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,

Who here among us Peshitta primacists would disagree with that statement? I certainly would not!

"Aramaic first"; "Greek followed"! That's Aramaic primacy, my brother.

Burkta b'Alahan w'b'Meshikha!

Dave
Reply
#6
enarxe Wrote:
Yochanan5730 Wrote:Shalom, Sh'lema, Sh'lama, Hola, Aloha, hiya, peace <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
[..]
In looking at these things I have come to the conclusion that the primacy of which one came first is of no dire consequence.
[..]
In Yeshua,
Z???ev Yochanan
<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Just one note to your post dear brother in Mshikha. Does that mean that you have found no differences between Peshitta and Greek mess which would have practical, pastoral consequences (or theological, as those sooner or later will bear some practicalities)?

Peace,
Jerzy
ALSO
Quote:by gbausc on Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:14 am

Akh Yochanan,

You are an Aramaic primacist and don't know it.

You wrote:

Quote: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,

Who here among us Peshitta primacists would disagree with that statement? I certainly would not!

"Aramaic first"; "Greek followed"! That's Aramaic primacy, my brother.

Burkta b'Alahan w'b'Meshikha!

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

i am hoping to answer both replies with one post, though my brain is on "fried" at the moment... been up for a couple of days... i am hyperkenetic <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> i cant seem to shut my brain off once a subject gets in, and it will keep me up all night sometimes, even when i try to ignore it lol

anyhoo...

it has been in recent months that i have been really researching the comparisons between Greek and Aramaic. to me, the primacy issue has seemed to be one about which is supreme or better than the other. it is to this idea that their is no dire consequence. as to which came first, like i said, i would certainly admit to the Aramaic, but i do not consider one better than the other. i also said that they compliment one another. now this pertains only to as far as i have gotten in my research. (admittedly... not too far)

as to the practical, pastoral consequences (or theological, as those sooner or later will bear some practicalities), if your question pertains to what i think it does, a person's point of view can pretty much do that on its own despite what language a thing is written in. i know this first hand. being Hebrew, of a Conservative Jewish background, i would look to the Tenakh with a conservative's learning and acceptance of the doctrines and interpretations given to me by my Rabbis. as a messianic, i look at those very same scriptures and no longer see what they had taught me, but the Mashi'ach. they're the same scriptures, just a different point of view. believe me, the varied differences in doctrine and teaching between east and west could have happened even if there was only Aramaic writings and no such thing as the greek. having said that, lol, what i have found so far, though, is that there are some differences, but nothing that, in my opinion, would work against the general teaching of the Gospel. this is "so far". the main differences i have thus far found are words the aramaic doesn't have that the greek does have. and these i appreciate. the aramaic, in some cases so far, use expressions i find much deeper in meaning, like: "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Gk) as "Blessed are the cultivators of peace" (Ar). being a cultivator of peace has much more depth of heart to me than being merely a peacemaker. a peacemaker merely stops a conflict, a cultivater helps it to grow and brings it to maturity <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> maybe i just contradicted myself about the differences pertaining to doctrine and such <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> lol i am learning... <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

believe it or not, every single thing posted here in response to my initial post has been covered in my research (though Paul has brought up some interesting things). like i said, the arguments go in both directions. much of what has been said, look in the opposite view of. and though i dont know the exact wording to their refuting of the questions by them, they were refuted by the greek primacists. i suppose that i am either too lazy or complacent to make a real choice in the matter. and the fact that the greek primacists have some convincing arguments as well, doesn't help in such a choice. ultimately, i'm an english primacist, not being fluent in Aramaic, lacking much grammatical understanding, and not knowing a lick of Greek either, doesn't much help in the matter. as i am researching and learning, things will develope and change. but as far as style and class <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> ... it's the Aramaic <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Dave, i am looking into getting a copy of your prose translation <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> i'm a poet myself and love literary work, that's why i'm an english primacist (*wink).

Albion, what were saddles made of? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> who made the saddles? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> (i know i'm a smartmouthed brat sometimes <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> , but i love ya, bro <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> ) though they may have been called "Saddlemakers", they didn't just make Saddles, they also made tents, the romans used leather for their tents as well. another name for them is "Leather Workers" <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Much Love and Blessings in Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#7
Paul Younan Wrote:Shalom Yochanan,

I respect the thoughtfulness of your post and there are valid points we can all agree on. Please give thought to the following:

(a) The Greek manuscript tradition is our best friend. We have an immense appreciation for these works, without which it would be much harder to prove the original language of the NT. The scribes, by and large, were very respectful to the original text that lay in front of them and it is because of this that we can ascertain the Semitic reality underneath the Greek skin.

(b) Jews at the time, and today, are a minority in the Aramaic-speaking world. The number of "Gentile" (Semitic, non-Jewish) nations who speak Aramaic are many today, and there were many more back in the time of the New Testament. Arameans, Phoenicians, Mesopotamians (Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandean, Hatran, etc.), Arabs, as well as non-Semitic nations like the Persians and certain Anatolians.....the list goes on and on.

For example, the Apostles and the Edtha (Congregation~Church) spread east of Jerusalem as well as west of Jerusalem. To the east of Jerusalem lay an immense population of Jewish, and non-Jewish, Aramaic speakers. Primarily non-Jewish.

I said that to say this: Aramaic had as much, if not much more, readership among "Gentiles" (Semitic and non-Semitic) as Greek did among"Gentiles".

+Shamasha Paul

Shalom Paul,
thank you for your info <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> while it is true that the Jews were a minority in the various regions, and that Aramaic was more common of a language amongst the gentiles in that area, it doesn't discount the fact that Greek was used as a common language of commerce and trade at the time. if it is that i am misinformed, then i will have to pay a visit to my history teacher and tell him he's wrong... i wonder if he's still alive? *scratches head*

Aramaic had as much, if not much more, readership among "Gentiles" (Semitic and non-Semitic) as Greek did among"Gentiles".

to this i would have to say that the aramaic speaking regions weren't the only ones in the empire, and the gospel traversed further than what is recorded in acts. in fact, acts should be called "The History of the Congregation, Though Mostly Paul" <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> now i have read some histories about Aramaic being found as far as China. and i believe this to be true. it is also history that ancient Hebrew carvings have been found here in North Amarica. it doesn't make the Mormons correct either. it only proves that some of these people who spoke this particular language have been there, and it doesn't necessarily reveal that the american indians spoke hebrew either. do you see my point in this stance? i am not trying to be stand-offish by any means, Paul, just sharing other considerations that my research has lead me to. i have to take into consideration everything that i have discovered in research, even if is false (and that usually reveals itself as such eventually, or else i wouldn't be a follower of Yeshua). i am never afraid, or even ashamed to say i am wrong. though i am arrogant enough to say, "Oh, i was mistaken." or point a finger and say "that's what he said to me!" <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->

not as a challenge, but rather, to further my studies, can you recommend any books on the history of Aramaic, and not something that is dead set on Aramaic Primacy. i want a general history, ya know what i mean? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> i think it is time i stepped back away from the heat of primacy and get a good view of the fire itself <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

one thing i do know, is that i do have to get past a lot of western ideologies and considerations concerning the histories of these things. i am not one for conspiracy theories, but i do think/feel that the western church, in its predominance over legit church history, has done its part to try to smother anything that would have contradicted it's own history. i am trying to learn... <!-- sConfusedigh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sigh.gif" alt="Confusedigh:" title="Sigh" /><!-- sConfusedigh: -->

Much Love and Blessing in Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#8
Paul Younan Wrote:Shalom Yochanan,

I respect the thoughtfulness of your post and there are valid points we can all agree on. Please give thought to the following:

(a) The Greek manuscript tradition is our best friend. We have an immense appreciation for these works, without which it would be much harder to prove the original language of the NT. The scribes, by and large, were very respectful to the original text that lay in front of them and it is because of this that we can ascertain the Semitic reality underneath the Greek skin.

(b) Jews at the time, and today, are a minority in the Aramaic-speaking world. The number of "Gentile" (Semitic, non-Jewish) nations who speak Aramaic are many today, and there were many more back in the time of the New Testament. Arameans, Phoenicians, Mesopotamians (Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandean, Hatran, etc.), Arabs, as well as non-Semitic nations like the Persians and certain Anatolians.....the list goes on and on.

For example, the Apostles and the Edtha (Congregation~Church) spread east of Jerusalem as well as west of Jerusalem. To the east of Jerusalem lay an immense population of Jewish, and non-Jewish, Aramaic speakers. Primarily non-Jewish.

I said that to say this: Aramaic had as much, if not much more, readership among "Gentiles" (Semitic and non-Semitic) as Greek did among"Gentiles".

+Shamasha Paul

Shalom Paul,
thank you for your info <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> while it is true that the Jews were a minority in the various regions, and that Aramaic was more common of a language amongst the gentiles in that area, it doesn't discount the fact that Greek was used as a common language of commerce and trade at the time. if it is that i am misinformed, then i will have to pay a visit to my history teacher and tell him he's wrong... i wonder if he's still alive? *scratches head*

Aramaic had as much, if not much more, readership among "Gentiles" (Semitic and non-Semitic) as Greek did among"Gentiles".

to this i would have to say that the aramaic speaking regions weren't the only ones in the empire, and the gospel traversed further than what is recorded in acts. in fact, acts should be called "The History of the Congregation, Though Mostly Paul" <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> now i have read some histories about Aramaic being found as far as China. and i believe this to be true. it is also history that ancient Hebrew carvings have been found here in North Amarica. it doesn't make the Mormons correct either. it only proves that some of these people who spoke this particular language have been there, and it doesn't necessarily reveal that the american indians spoke hebrew either. do you see my point in this stance? i am not trying to be stand-offish by any means, Paul, just sharing other considerations that my research has lead me to. i have to take into consideration everything that i have discovered in research, even if is false (and that usually reveals itself as such eventually, or else i wouldn't be a follower of Yeshua). i am never afraid, or even ashamed to say i am wrong. though i am arrogant enough to say, "Oh, i was mistaken." or point a finger and say "that's what he said to me!" <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->

not as a challenge, but rather, to further my studies, can you recommend any books on the history of Aramaic, and not something that is dead set on Aramaic Primacy. i want a general history, ya know what i mean? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> i think it is time i stepped back away from the heat of primacy and get a good view of the fire itself <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

one thing i do know, is that i do have to get past a lot of western ideologies and considerations concerning the histories of these things. i am not one for conspiracy theories, but i do think/feel that the western church, in its predominance over legit church history, has done its part to try to smother anything that would have contradicted it's own history. i am trying to learn... <!-- sConfusedigh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sigh.gif" alt="Confusedigh:" title="Sigh" /><!-- sConfusedigh: -->

Much Love and Blessing in Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#9
Yochanan5730 Wrote: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.
shalom again <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

i was uncertain about bringing this up, i dont know why, i just was. i have stated:
Quote: 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.
but i must ask: how is it to be dealt with when, as far as my investigation has taken me, the Greek manuscripts are in fact older than the oldest Aramaic manuscripts we now have? there is a 150-350 year difference in which the greek are the oldest. what could be said in support of Aramaic primacy in light of this information?

Much love and blessings,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#10
Albion Wrote:Shlama Z???ev Yochanan,
...
Why is ALL of the poetry, and word plays MISSING in the Greek MSS?
...
Shlama, Albion
<!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ya know i missed this question...

i am uncertain what you mean by the poetry. is it a certain style of poetry missing from greek that is in the aramaic? because the greek does have poetry in it. so i am either misunderstanding this general question concerning the poetry, or *bobs head around befuddled*i just dont get it lol

as for wordplays, it is actually quite possible to develope wordplays from one language to the other, and the argument could be (not definately is) that it could have began in greek, and "poetic license" was taken in the translation. i happen to know that this is possible, Dave has the Aramaic in an english prose version. being a poet myself, and desiring to have a copy, i appreciate the work he's put into it. also, he says that it is an accurate translation. i have found wordplays in Hebrew translations that the english and greek do not have, in fact not even the aramaic. an example: "and you shall call his name Yeshua, for he shall save (Yoshiya) his people from their sins." wordplays dont necessarily set the pace for primacy. if such is the case, then the king james 1611 is divinely inspired in english. in Psalm 46 you count from the first word 46 words, and you come to "shake", and from the last word, excluding "Selah", you caount 46 words you come to "speare".

the point in this is that a man's wit and skill can create in a translation something that wasn't necessarily there in the original text, that includes poetics (like Dave's Prose version) and wordplays (like the hebrew and KJV). the reason Psalm 46 has Shakespeare written into its text like that is this: one of the translators of the Psalms was a close and dear friend to Willie Shakespeare. and for Willie's 46 b-day, the translator composed this Psalm especially for Him. and the neat thing is that the Hebrew text didn't need much manipulation at all, if any. do you kind of see my point on this? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> i hope i didn't misunderstand your question and thus write up a bunch of pointless dribble <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

many blessings in Yeshua, bro, <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#11
Yochanan5730 Wrote:..
i was uncertain about bringing this up, i dont know why, i just was. i have stated:
Quote: 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.
but i must ask: how is it to be dealt with when, as far as my investigation has taken me, the Greek manuscripts are in fact older than the oldest Aramaic manuscripts we now have? there is a 150-350 year difference in which the greek are the oldest. what could be said in support of Aramaic primacy in light of this information?

Much love and blessings,
Z'ev Yochanan

I really like your posts. It's like a recap of many question that I have been asking myself some time ago. I hope this does not sound condescending, just good to read others who are going through similar thought process.

Just my two cents (or 2p) again.

With preservation of manuscripts it is like with wine, not necessarily older means better, the place where and the way it was produced in is much more important, quality is what matters. The variants in Greek m(e)ss are most disturbing to an enquiring mind. They differ so much that it is really not so important how old particular mss is but how it is faithful to the original, DSS example teaches us that, who knows, maybe some time, somewhere, someone will recover some mss. That would be nice. But it is completely unimportant if I'm certain that the text I have in front of me has been transmitted with utmost care and I can be sure that it is faithful to the original.

The whole Textual Criticism is a killer to many souls who had started the persuit and then back-sliden, turned into unbelief. I had started looking at Peshitta Primacy in more detail mainly because it offered a reasonable solution to a problem of variants. Such bad treatment of the holy text that we can see in Greek manuscripts is simply unacceptable. With your Jewish roots I think you understand it even better. After looking through arguments, examples, books, opinions it started to make sense to me. After talking or writing to several "Greek-Primacists" it was very clear to me that most of them just repeat other peoples fables or old, unproven suppositions, quotes of quotes of quotes. Most entertaining is listening to some (even academics) who claim to be "specialist" make some judging statements and do not even know basic Aramaic, it is just hillarious. For me, the main remaining arguments to decide "which text was first" are linguistic. IMHO these are much in favour of Peshitta (I still have some projects in mind to add to this, probably good to follow them when I retire).

Primacy is an important issue for me, but for 99% of the others it is of no importance or relevance, and probably will not be, loving your God, yourself or your neighbor (or wife) is first daily struggle, until this is sorted what language was the scripture written in is a non-issue. Yes, the core message of the Gospel is well preserved in Greek and other translations. And if those who call themselves disciples of our teacher have been reading every day humbly and with understanding some translation of a translation of a translation of the Scriptures (not to mention Greek or Aramaic text), it would suffice.

This was very general and more on a personal note (hey, we are in General section!) but I'm sure you will hear more specific answers and arguments from others here.

Peace and blessings,
Jerzy
Reply
#12
enarxe Wrote:
Yochanan5730 Wrote:..
i was uncertain about bringing this up, i dont know why, i just was. i have stated:
Quote: 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.
but i must ask: how is it to be dealt with when, as far as my investigation has taken me, the Greek manuscripts are in fact older than the oldest Aramaic manuscripts we now have? there is a 150-350 year difference in which the greek are the oldest. what could be said in support of Aramaic primacy in light of this information?

Much love and blessings,
Z'ev Yochanan

I really like your posts. It's like a recap of many question that I have been asking myself some time ago. I hope this does not sound condescending, just good to read others who are going through similar thought process.

Just my two cents (or 2p) again.

With preservation of manuscripts it is like with wine, not necessarily older means better, the place where and the way it was produced in is much more important, quality is what matters. The variants in Greek m(e)ss are most disturbing to an enquiring mind. They differ so much that it is really not so important how old particular mss is but how it is faithful to the original, DSS example teaches us that, who knows, maybe some time, somewhere, someone will recover some mss. That would be nice. But it is completely unimportant if I'm certain that the text I have in front of me has been transmitted with utmost care and I can be sure that it is faithful to the original.

The whole Textual Criticism is a killer to many souls who had started the persuit and then back-sliden, turned into unbelief. I had started looking at Peshitta Primacy in more detail mainly because it offered a reasonable solution to a problem of variants. Such bad treatment of the holy text that we can see in Greek manuscripts is simply unacceptable. With your Jewish roots I think you understand it even better. After looking through arguments, examples, books, opinions it started to make sense to me. After talking or writing to several "Greek-Primacists" it was very clear to me that most of them just repeat other peoples fables or old, unproven suppositions, quotes of quotes of quotes. Most entertaining is listening to some (even academics) who claim to be "specialist" make some judging statements and do not even know basic Aramaic, it is just hillarious. For me, the main remaining arguments to decide "which text was first" are linguistic. IMHO these are much in favour of Peshitta (I still have some projects in mind to add to this, probably good to follow them when I retire).

Primacy is an important issue for me, but for 99% of the others it is of no importance or relevance, and probably will not be, loving your God, yourself or your neighbor (or wife) is first daily struggle, until this is sorted what language was the scripture written in is a non-issue. Yes, the core message of the Gospel is well preserved in Greek and other translations. And if those who call themselves disciples of our teacher have been reading every day humbly and with understanding some translation of a translation of a translation of the Scriptures (not to mention Greek or Aramaic text), it would suffice.

This was very general and more on a personal note (hey, we are in General section!) but I'm sure you will hear more specific answers and arguments from others here.

Peace and blessings,
Jerzy
Shalom Jerzy,
thank you for considerate response <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> it has certainly helped in many ways, more than you may realise. and reading this, you said something that made me chuckle heheh:

it was very clear to me that most of them just repeat other peoples fables or old, unproven suppositions, quotes of quotes of quotes

this is what i go through with members of the Sacred Name Movement. i read a book called Fossilized Customs, a Sacred Name introduction of sorts, and i traced its references which went to references which went to quoting the author on a subject that he had written somewhere else. i find it sad, seriously sad, that people out there don't realise the falsehoods of these pseudo-hebraic scholars.

much love in Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#13
Shlama Yochanan,

I want to address a couple of things:

(a) In an above post you mention Greek as being the language of commerce in "the empire." An important thing to keep in mind is that there was not a "empire" at the time, there were "empires". Immediately to the east of the Roman outpost called "Iudaea", lay the vast Persian empire where Aramaic was the language of commerce and the educated elite. Also, I may add, the home to the largest numbers of Jews outside of the Holy Land.

(b) The age of manuscripts: in order to defend Aramaic primacy from this type of inquiry one only need to look at the history of the TaNaKh itself. Before the discovery of the DSS, what were the oldest Hebrew manuscripts? Aleppo? Leningrad? Both of which were predated by Greek manuscripts of the LXX by at least 6-700 years. By Aramaic, and even Arabic, translations by centuries.

How about the book of Tobit? For the last couple of centuries, western scholarship was convinced that the Greek versions were the original. Until the Aramaic original was found at Qumran.

The fact of the matter, Akhi, is that manuscript age means almost nothing. Aramaic scribes, like Hebrew scribes, destroyed a manuscript once it became old and illegible. This was of course to protect the text against false readings, or the risk of the word of God being trampled underfoot or laying on the ground. This is the main reason why most old manuscripts are lost forever, as soon as they began to fall apart a scribe was commissioned to copy it immediately and destroy the original by burning it (our tradition), or burying it (your tradition).

In any event, Greek and Latin fragments abound because they simply did not have the same sort of traditions surrounding the transmission and purposeful destruction of their manuscripts.

There is a reason why you almost never find a fragment of an Aramaic NT - they are almost always complete codices that are still readable and intact.

My question to you is this: if by some miracle a complete manuscript of the Aramaic NT was found in the desert somewhere that was definitively dated to 100AD.....how would that strengthen or weaken our position?

What Jerzy said is wise: the proof is in the text itself, and not in the age of the manuscripts. We have complete manuscripts as old as their complete manuscripts, they have fragments that are older. But again, the absence of fragments in Aramaic shouldn't surprise anyone. Just as the lack of fragments in Hebrew doesn't surprise anyone.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#14
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Yochanan,

I want to address a couple of things:

(a) In an above post you mention Greek as being the language of commerce in "the empire." An important thing to keep in mind is that there was not a "empire" at the time, there were "empires". Immediately to the east of the Roman outpost called "Iudaea", lay the vast Persian empire where Aramaic was the language of commerce and the educated elite. Also, I may add, the home to the largest numbers of Jews outside of the Holy Land.

(b) The age of manuscripts: in order to defend Aramaic primacy from this type of inquiry one only need to look at the history of the TaNaKh itself. Before the discovery of the DSS, what were the oldest Hebrew manuscripts? Aleppo? Leningrad? Both of which were predated by Greek manuscripts of the LXX by at least 6-700 years. By Aramaic, and even Arabic, translations by centuries.

How about the book of Tobit? For the last couple of centuries, western scholarship was convinced that the Greek versions were the original. Until the Aramaic original was found at Qumran.

The fact of the matter, Akhi, is that manuscript age means almost nothing. Aramaic scribes, like Hebrew scribes, destroyed a manuscript once it became old and illegible. This was of course to protect the text against false readings, or the risk of the word of God being trampled underfoot or laying on the ground. This is the main reason why most old manuscripts are lost forever, as soon as they began to fall apart a scribe was commissioned to copy it immediately and destroy the original by burning it (our tradition), or burying it (your tradition).

In any event, Greek and Latin fragments abound because they simply did not have the same sort of traditions surrounding the transmission and purposeful destruction of their manuscripts.

There is a reason why you almost never find a fragment of an Aramaic NT - they are almost always complete codices that are still readable and intact.

My question to you is this: if by some miracle a complete manuscript of the Aramaic NT was found in the desert somewhere that was definitively dated to 100AD.....how would that strengthen or weaken our position?

What Jerzy said is wise: the proof is in the text itself, and not in the age of the manuscripts. We have complete manuscripts as old as their complete manuscripts, they have fragments that are older. But again, the absence of fragments in Aramaic shouldn't surprise anyone. Just as the lack of fragments in Hebrew doesn't surprise anyone.

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

and thanks for more history lessons <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> i love history...

much love in Yeshua,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply
#15
i want to thank everyone for their responses and those to come in this thread and others. thank you for your patience and understanding when it comes to my presumptions and ignorance. i question not to debate, and i may present things that may stir a little, but it is mostly things i have picked up on here and there and said to myself, "Hmmm, i wonder what the forum would say about that?" please believe me, i know that i couldn't stump everyone here <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> nor would i try. i am very interested in these things... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

anyways, i have learned various things, about myself as well as the scriptures in general. one thing i have learned that is very important, is that knowing hebrew doesn't qualify for understanding aramaic. i have been learning that many things differ between the two languages, and not just pronunciation of things lol but, this is okay <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> i will press on.

many will be happy, and hopefully blessed, i do believe i have come to a decision...

the Aramaic is certainly the prime text <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> so be expecting questions regarding the differences between western and eastern aramaic, syriac and other things <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

God's blessings upon each of you,
Z'ev Yochanan
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)