Your "mistranslations" confirm Greek primacy

[Burning one]

Shlama,

welcome to the forum. i hope you can look at the evidences provided in some of the threads and be edified there with clearer presentations of the nuances found in the Peshitta.

as for what language Paul wrote his letters in, well, we know he was educated in a Rabbinic school in Jerusalem from the time of childhood until he was grown, and we have ample preserved information showing us how the Greek language was viewed during his time. that said, could he speak it? i think so, to at least a limited degree. but it doesn't mean that he could write in it. consider the historian Josephus, who wrote his histories in Aramaic and sent them out across the Roman empire, and only afterward translated them into Greek - a language which he said was not an easy one to learn and after many years still was unable to pronounce it to any real perfection -- this information should be understood in light of the fact that he came from a priestly family, and they were the Hebrews who had the closest ties to Roman culture at the time. interesting thoughts to consider...
cocnerning the mathematical "proofs" i am extremely leary of them. once you have a firm grip on the textual criticism of the NT manuscripts, especially the Greek, the entire idea begins to fade away quickly. i'd rather it be the other way around, but if you are going strictly for inspiration-verification based off of what gels mathematically, then the result is simply going to be a hodge-podge of myriads of Greek manuscripts, and would certainly never be taken seriously by anyone at that point. there has been some work promoting the Peshitta via supposed "codes," but that, too, has been a minefield best left alone. in the end, the primacy of the NT, whether it be Greek or Aramaic, is going to stand or fall on textual nuances that point unquestionably to which is the source-document. this site does well to offer multitudes of these textual evidences that i think could be of help in your searching.

as for the awkwardness you mention in the AENT - is that the English of which you speak, or the Aramaic?

and finally, Andrew Gabriel Roth is responsible for the AENT, not Paul Younan, for future reference.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[Paul Younan]

Hello, and I also second Jeremy's welcome to the forum.

A couple of clarifications: firstly, Aramaic also has numbering with the letters. It still does to this day. In fact it has the same letters as the Hebrew alphabet. Most written languages, before the invention of the Arabic numeral system, used the letters of the alphabet as numbers. This certainly was not limited to Greek, or Hebrew for that matter.

Secondly, the point you make about Corinth, Ephesus, etc, is well taken. However we have to consider who a letter is addressed to, not where it is addressed. Just because someone writes a letter to someone in New York City, doesn't mean that letter necessarily has to have been written in English. Even today, the Patriarch of the Church of the East writes all of his epistles in Aramaic, no matter which parish receives it (Iraq, Iran, India, United States, Sweden, Germany, etc.) It is addressed to primarily Aramaic speakers, and the rest of the languages it is translated into are done at the local parish (for the benefit of those who don't understand Aramaic.) This was also the case until very recently with the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin language.

Welcome again!

+Shamasha

[Thirdwoe]

Hi Zardak,

Do a study of the Eastern Peshitta Text at this site below, and read Paul's Interlinear here at Peshitt.org....where you can get the full scope of what is contained in each book of the Aramaic Scriptures, as personally handed to the Church of the East from the Apostles of Christ themselves.

If you need some help knowing how to use the study tool there, let me know.

Here is the link: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/</a><!-- m -->

Also, a translation that is of a more literal nature than a paraphrasitic or a "dynamic equivalance" one, is going to read more awkwardly in its translation. You can see this from the Greek texts as well...in some of the more literal translations of its text in English. Try the Youngs Translation for instance or the J.P. Green Translation...which tries very hard to be as close to what is found in the Greek texts, they translate from.

And it should be noted that when Paul would go into the cites he was sent to by God, you can see in the Book of Acts, that he often is said to be among the diaspora Jews, who dwelt in these lands...though many times they would kick him out of their Synagouges... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

He also met in houses often...and it seems to me that Lydia may have been a Jewish woman in diaspora. I'm not saying that Paul did not speak with Greeks and other People groups, when he went among the Nations...but I think He may have sought out the Jews in these places 1st...being that Jesus said that His Apostles were to preach 1st to the Jews, then to the rest of the peoples of the earth...Remember, there was a point in which Paul was instructed to wash his hands in reaching out to the Jews though, of those who were rejecting the Good News about Christ, when exactly this was, I have not determined as yet.

It is my held belief that The Letters and The Gospels, were written down in both Aramaic AND Greek from the start by the Apostles and their helpers...It seems to be the case that in some cases they were dictated in Aramaic, and Scribed in both Aramaic and Greek at the same time by The Apostles helpers... and given to the Christians who read these Languages...not to mention the old Latin as well, but that seems to have come a bit later, and is shown to be a translation of Greek sources. Greek being the lingua franca, even in Rome at the time, but Aramaic was very wide spread in Asia Minor as well.

The Church of the East is said to have recieved the New Testament in Aramaic form from the hands of the Apostles, about 78 A.D. So early in fact, that they did not get 2 Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, or Revelation, with the collection they received...these 5 books being penned later than 78 A.D. or not being intended to be read by the Eastern Christians at the time...such as the Book of Revelation, which was commanded by God to be given to the Chruches of Asia Minor (the 7 Churches) and may have stayed there for some time, before copies were made of them... if it was written prior to 70 A.D., which some have maintained to be the case. If not it was written some 20 years after the Church of the East received the other books, minus the 4 others mentioned above, which has been shown to be written later than the Letters and Gospels were.

Shlama,
Chuck

[Zardak]

Thanks for the welcome guys! I hear what your saying and can see there is a lot i don't know, but also i believe some simple facts of common sense in my case can still give a workable answer of substance until i'm proved totally wrong. Thus if i mention things like apostle Paul (LOL, i have to write apostle before Paul to avoid any mix up of referring to Mr Younan) Anyway, in the book of Acts, Paul did make statements such as "from now on I go to the Gentiles, correct? And also other statements about, "making known the conversion of the Gentiles" and also the letter written from Jerusalem addressed to the "Gentile brethren" there is no way that they would refer to Jews as Gentile brethren, or that recently occupied Greek lands being Roman colonies would in any logical sense be speaking Aramaic, when the Greek lands had only relatively recently been occupied by the Romans and thus would have still been speaking Greek. Where Aramaic comes into that scenario is beyond me. Therefore the letters Paul wrote after evangelizing the Gentiles when having departed from the Jews from that point were subsequently to the Gentile audience to whom he did indeed go, as in the place name of the letters, now he would not refer to any Hellenists as Gentiles as they were Jews, and he would not be referring to Jews of the dispersion, therefore he was indeed writing to Greeks who would have been definitely speaking the Greek language, simple. There is no way the the lands of Greece would have been speaking Aramaic as their mother tongue, that is nigh on impossible considering the circumstances. Quite clear cut in my mind. Also as regards the letter of Hebrews, the content does seem to indicate that there was an audience who might have already had a fairly good understanding of Jewish history etc, but that could be explained that the Hellenists were Greek speaking Jews and that quite a few times a lot of Jews living in Asia minor had been converted already in the Greek lands.Thus the overwhelming evidence would suggest to me that its a very high probability that the New Testament was originally written in the Greek language. How on earth would an Ephesian being steeped in idolatry have any acquaintance with the Aramaic language, just doesn't add up at all, the majority of the believers from those lands would have been predominantly Greeks and Gentiles, with a few Jews or Israelites sprinkled among them.

Apart from that, anyone discounting the implications of the bible numerics behind the Greek is overlooking a very potent verifier from God. The fact that the Greek texts are so entwined with such precise mathematical calculations to the point of proving the sheer supernatural origin of them, means to me that the Greek texts have already been stamped by God as "perfect" and from Him.Those precise mathematical patterns have not been shown in the Aramaic at all. God also shows those sorts of patterns in nature to show He is the Creator. To make an outright statement that every New Testament letter was "originally" written in Aramaic makes absolutely no sense "whatsoever" considering the overall known facts of history. I am happy to be proved wrong, but at this stage its looking highly unlikely. <!-- satisfied: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/satisfied.gif" alt="atisfied:" title="Satisfied" /><!-- satisfied: -->

[Paul Younan]

Anyway, in the book of Acts, Paul did make statements such as "from now on I go to the Gentiles, correct? And also other statements about, "making known the conversion of the Gentiles" and also the letter written from Jerusalem addressed to the "Gentile brethren" there is no way that they would refer to Jews as Gentile brethren, or that recently occupied Greek lands being Roman colonies would in any logical sense be speaking Aramaic, when the Greek lands had only relatively recently been occupied by the Romans and thus would have still been speaking Greek. Where Aramaic comes into that scenario is beyond me.

Please remember that Aramaic is a Gentile language. I am, in fact, an Aramaic-speaking Gentile. The vast majority of Aramaic speakers during the time of Christ (and even today) are *not* Jewish. We're talking about several nations as well. (Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans, Babylonians, Phoenicians, etc.)

There were many more Gentile Aramaic-speakers in those areas of Asia Minor, than Jewish Aramaic-speakers.

+Shamasha

[Thirdwoe]

Zardak,

Since you are trying the "logical" route..how is it not logical to you, that The Apostles, whose native Language was Aramaic, would not write or dictate in their natural Language, while their scribes would then translate into the Greek or even Latin, sending that translation out for those to whom did not understand Aramaic, and sending the Aramaic out to those who spoke that Language? Aramaic, Greek, and Latin were the main languages of the lands that The Apostles were sent by God to preach and teach the Good News about His Messiah.

Shlama,
Chuck

[Alan G77]

Shamasha, in the Peshitta does the term Greek appear anywhere or is it always referred to as gentile? I remember hearing that the term gentile is replaced by the term Greek in the Greek manuscripts.

To zardak, we need to ascertain when Paul stated that he would not go to the gentiles and compare that with when he write his letters.

[Paul Younan]

Shamasha, in the Peshitta does the term Greek appear anywhere or is it always referred to as gentile? I remember hearing that the term gentile is replaced by the term Greek in the Greek manuscripts.

To zardak, we need to ascertain when Paul stated that he would not go to the gentiles and compare that with when he write his letters.

Hi Alan,

It does, search for "Greek" in the Lexicon:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi">http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi</a><!-- m -->

However there are a number of differences in the Aramaic vs. Greek text. There's a lot of substitution of "Greek" and "Aramean".

+Shamasha

[IPOstapyuk]

It's funny that all greek manuscripts contain the same mistranslations.
For example, your "Treasure" for Aramaic Primacy (Acts 8:27) actually prove greek origin of this text. It's not possible that all translators used "gaza" and none used "thesauros".
Another example is Romans 5,7 with greek "mistranslation" - righteous/wicked. ALL translators did the same error ???
All "mistranslations" prove greek primacy, it's so clear

.

This is very smart claim, Sir.

In Acts.8:27 word "gaza" could be a very popular loan word in the initial geographic area or
a little known word and unknown to many and a Greek translator consulted other Greek texts for help.
Guessings can be too many.

As for me, in Rom. 5:7 'the wicked' and 'the good' is logical counterweight.
On the other side the righteous and good has no counterweight at all and
is irrational at all. I do not know why some of them translated as 'the righteous', it could be a lot
of logical guessings.

The main point is that the Gospel originally was preached by Jesus in Hebrew dialect of Aramaic and
the rest of the texts is translations of the original words - meanings. Let us use contextual logic to spot work of the corruptors.

[Alan G77]

Shamasha,

That is what I wanted to know, many times it should read Aramean but the greek scribe changed it to greek. tsk tsk tsk

[distazo]

Hi Alan,

I have created a thread on 'Aramean ' vs Greek in the past. But this claim is difficult to verify.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2630&p=17411">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2630&p=17411</a><!-- l -->

The Peshitta has 'armoyo' which according to lexicons, means pagan. (And Greek, often in the NT also means 'pagan' and not ethnical)

The Aramaic for Aramoyo means 'Syrian'. So we have to guess whether or not the origin (which obviously must have been written without vowels if it is Aramaic) -meant- pagan, or whether it meant an etnical group, 'Arameans' (aka Syrians).