Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A historical logic
#1
I am not a Greek primacist and not Aramaic primacy fanatic.
I greatly respect David's scholarship but his doctrinal teaching is unacceptable to me.
At his "7th-edition-NT-with-notes"
as he is proving Aramaic primacy
when reading the notes about words similarities in DSS, except first pair they not look similar at all. Even more, far from being similar. I have read notes first on first 3 Gospels and no serious proof at all. Just rough guessing trying to prove own point of view.

On the other side let us look at history and this is what I am concerned.
The Syriac versions of the early centuries were translated from Greek.
They believed that the original was Greek. The Syriac Church fathers referred to Greek.
Even today Syriac Orthodox Church traditionally maintain that the NT scriptures descended
from Greek and their center Antiochea was center of the eastern Christianity.

The point is: in the beginning centuries it was believed in descension from Greek but now after 2 millenniums as David e.g some strongly believe in Aramaic primacy. Are we smarter than the first Christians?

Now, looking at
<<<
"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Mar Eshai Shimun

by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East

April 5, 1957
>>>>
Based on what is this statement? On textual research?
As I see, there is no base for this statement at all since he not provided it.

Now if the patriarch stated this way, then why SOC where the eastern Christianity originated maintain the opposite way?

It is clear that Peshitta/Peshitta is one version, period. But we meet huge differences
at places although it was propagated by Aramaic primacists that almost no differences at all. Better let us look at the face of truth and be open to it and not stubbornly categorical.
Reply
#2
Which huge differences do you mean?
Reply
#3
For example, these variations:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3224">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3224</a><!-- l -->

Distazo, you may PM me your private concerns if
you have some.
Reply
#4
Those variations are not huge. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
In Greek, there are 400.000 variations, including the Alexandrian/Byzantine tree.
Reply
#5
For me a big number of absent or present verses is huge variation.
Its not words or letters.
Greek manuscripts have much more variations of course.
The point is that East and West have same problems although in different measure.
Reply
#6
The Greek has a Semitic syntax.

Now, I've seen your change of mind. No problem with that, but if you think the Aramaic primaicsts make big claims, why not for instance proof how semitic syntax came into the Greek NT?

Take for instance Jude 1:23. 'hate the cloth'.

This makes no sense at all. But in Jewish Aramaic even in Hebrew, it also could be translated as 'ignore the cloth'.

Again: There is NO scientific proof, and I cannot find any quote from a churchfater who said that Jude was penned in Aramaic.
But I also have not seen proof, that Jews wrote Greek using Aramaic syntax, right from the start.
Reply
#7
What I mean is the historical issue.
I not changed my mind just trying to think out of the box.
Reply
#8
IPOstapyuk Wrote:What I mean is the historical issue.
I not changed my mind just trying to think out of the box.

No problem in questioning, just try to imagine the whole picture rather than concentrating on one or two factors. Examine the evidence in its totality.

There is indeed a significant amount of variances between eastern and western copies of the Aramaic NT. But when you compare only eastern vs. eastern, they are only scribal errors/copy mistakes. The western tradition has far more variations amongst themselves.

+Shamasha
Reply
#9
From a historical perspective, imagine if the following was the case: (this is a reversal of the history)

Imagine if the Messiah and the Apostles, and their immediate followers were ethnic Greeks living in an empire controlled by Babylon. Imagine if the Gospel was originally preached in Greek, but in an Aramaic-speaking empire. And imagine if the Apostles wrote epistles to congregations in Babylon, Hatra, Nineveh and Ur of the Chaldeans, instead of the current situation. Imagine that the first converts in those congregations where ethnic Greeks in exile, right from the temples of Zeus and Aphrodite. Imagine the Apostles went to their own people, the Greeks, first. And made them the leaders of the congregation, with ethnic Arameans as a later addition to the fold.

Now imagine that the NT fragments, the oldest ones, were in Aramaic. But with a Greek syntax, and errors showing that they must have been translated from Greek. Word plays that only make sense in the Greek. A/B word scenarios (polysemy), etc.

What language do you suppose those Gospels and Epistles would have been written in? The language of the empire they were sojourners in (Aramaic), or the language of their own people (Greek) ?

Of course, any reasonable person who would bother to examine the evidence and cast aside any prejudice, would conclude that the NT must have been originally written in Greek. Right ?

+Shamasha
Reply
#10
Paul Younan Wrote:From a historical perspective, imagine if the following was the case: (this is a reversal of the history)

Imagine if the Messiah and the Apostles, and their immediate followers were ethnic Greeks living in an empire controlled by Babylon. Imagine if the Gospel was originally preached in Greek, but in an Aramaic-speaking empire. And imagine if the Apostles wrote epistles to congregations in Babylon, Hatra, Nineveh and Ur of the Chaldeans, instead of the current situation. Imagine that the first converts in those congregations where ethnic Greeks in exile, right from the temples of Zeus and Aphrodite. Imagine the Apostles went to their own people, the Greeks, first. And made them the leaders of the congregation, with ethnic Arameans as a later addition to the fold.

Now imagine that the NT fragments, the oldest ones, were in Aramaic. But with a Greek syntax, and errors showing that they must have been translated from Greek. Word plays that only make sense in the Greek. A/B word scenarios (polysemy), etc.

What language do you suppose those Gospels and Epistles would have been written in? The language of the empire they were sojourners in (Aramaic), or the language of their own people (Greek) ?

Of course, any reasonable person who would bother to examine the evidence and cast aside any prejudice, would conclude that the NT must have been originally written in Greek. Right ?

+Shamasha

this makes PERFECT SENSE!
<!-- sConfusedhocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhocked: --> I KNEW you were a sleeper agent for Greek Primacy, akhi Paul (or should i say 'adelphe Paulos?' <!-- sConfusedly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="Confusedly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sConfusedly: --> )!!! all this time, the Peshitta.org site was a front to reign in us Aramaic Primacy nutjobs, wasn't it?? <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Reply
#11
Paul Younan wrote:
Quote:Imagine the Apostles went to their own people, the Greeks, first. And made them the leaders of the congregation, with ethnic Arameans as a later addition to the fold.
This is absolutely possible. But these Greeks would be speaking Aramaic since they were part of the community and were born there, except they were fresh immigrants.

I am just curious why SOC thinks opposite in relation to the primacy including those who produced early Syriac versions.I am not a historian, linguistics is my area of interest.
Just decided to know a bit of history.

Personally, I believe that historically it is impossible to solve this problem but
textual research is the answer.

Burning one wrote:
Quote:I KNEW you were a sleeper agent for Greek Primacy...
Please clarify, akhi.
Thanks.
Reply
#12
Akhi Ivan,

Don't take this the wrong way because I tremendously respect all churches, and I really love the people of the SOC, for they are the same blood and have always been our neighbors to the west.

But I will say it anyway, because it is not their fault: here it is: ready?

The SOC are more Greek than the Greeks. There. I said it. They are more Greek than Greek Yoghurt. I don't mean ethnically, but I mean culturally they are more Arabic, and are more ecclesiastically Greek. They have always been more easily assimilated than the more independent Assyrian/Chaldean Church.

Look at the names of their bishops, I mean the patristic names they take when they become ranked as bishop and above. Now compare that to the patristic names of the CoE bishops.

This is because they lived under the brutal oppression of the Byzantine Church because they lived in the Byzantine empire. It was a Greek empire with an official Greek church that brutalized every other church.

Contrast that with the CoE which did not have to deal with an official church in the Persian empire. They had to deal with pagans, who could care less about Christianity. They were the Zoroastrians. After Islam conquered Persia, then again there was no official church in our lands. And the Muslims couldn't care less about Christianity.

See, there were some benefits to living oppressed under pagans and Muslims, rather than living oppressed under an official Christianity.

On the one side (Byzantine), you lose your identity, but keep your head on. On the other side (Persian), you lose your head, but at least the survivors keep their identity.

When you are among Christians, you blend in and eventually assimilate (willingly, or not.) However, when you are among pagans and Muslims, you very much cling on to your own identity as ferociously as possible. There is no assimilation.

That's the explanation of the history of each side, SOC and COE. Both started out Aramaic, but the way they ended up in the end was dictated by ... others.

+Shamasha
Reply
#13
Burning one Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:From a historical perspective, imagine if the following was the case: (this is a reversal of the history)

Imagine if the Messiah and the Apostles, and their immediate followers were ethnic Greeks living in an empire controlled by Babylon. Imagine if the Gospel was originally preached in Greek, but in an Aramaic-speaking empire. And imagine if the Apostles wrote epistles to congregations in Babylon, Hatra, Nineveh and Ur of the Chaldeans, instead of the current situation. Imagine that the first converts in those congregations where ethnic Greeks in exile, right from the temples of Zeus and Aphrodite. Imagine the Apostles went to their own people, the Greeks, first. And made them the leaders of the congregation, with ethnic Arameans as a later addition to the fold.

Now imagine that the NT fragments, the oldest ones, were in Aramaic. But with a Greek syntax, and errors showing that they must have been translated from Greek. Word plays that only make sense in the Greek. A/B word scenarios (polysemy), etc.

What language do you suppose those Gospels and Epistles would have been written in? The language of the empire they were sojourners in (Aramaic), or the language of their own people (Greek) ?

Of course, any reasonable person who would bother to examine the evidence and cast aside any prejudice, would conclude that the NT must have been originally written in Greek. Right ?

+Shamasha

this makes PERFECT SENSE!
<!-- sConfusedhocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhocked: --> I KNEW you were a sleeper agent for Greek Primacy, akhi Paul (or should i say 'adelphe Paulos?' <!-- sConfusedly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="Confusedly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sConfusedly: --> )!!! all this time, the Peshitta.org site was a front to reign in us Aramaic Primacy nutjobs, wasn't it?? <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Ha! You found me out!

In all seriousness, imagine if the oldest fragments were in Aramaic, but the last words on the Cross were preserved in the original Greek.

What if the oldest Aramaic fragments of Paul's epistles contained the Greek refrain for "Come, our Lord", right there at the end of the Aramaic fragment?

And, if the introduction of James was "to the scattered remnant of the 300 six-pack-abs ones in Mesopotamia, greetings" ?

What if Paul told everyone that his conversion on the Road to Arbela involved our Lord speaking to him in Greek?

I could go on with the more compelling linguistic arguments, but you get my point with just these silly examples.

Would there be as much controversy and ridicule to those who might be brave enough to suggest that all of it must've been penned in Greek? (the oldest fragments being in Aramaic, notwithstanding)

Somehow, our position is outrageous, amateurish and uninformed to those more "learned" than us.

+Shamasha

PS - as we all know, history is written by the victors. We are nothing but a tiny remnant that has somehow clung on to this identity despite enormous odds. 99.9% of Christendom owes its existence to Byzantium, and finds its roots in that milieu.
Reply
#14
Thank you, Paul, for so much information.
This is very interesting and enlightening.

History is written by victors, absolutely true.
Also, lets look who rule the world.
He said to Christ that I will give you all the kingdoms of the earth if
you fall and bow to me
since they all belong to me and i give them whom i want to.
As a result we have corrupted Greek text imposed to the world.
First corrupted, then imposed.

You are from these areas of the world so you brought to us westeners
something that official information usually excludes.
Reply
#15
Akhi Ivan

In isolation, things are more easily preserved.

In co-mingling, the weaker side is often assimilated into the stronger side. Even if the weaker side resists, and somehow manages to avoid being completely assimilated, it is eventually diluted to such an extent that it becomes unrecognizable. It becomes more like the majority. It becomes a strange mixture.

Hence, you have bishops names like "Mar Severus", "Mar Ignatius" and "Mar Philoxenus." Aramaic title, "Mar". Greek names after the title. A strange mixture.

When looking for something more closely related to its original state, start by looking for a remnant which remained in isolation. They can evolve over time as well, but to a much lesser extent, and for different reasons.

Mesopotamia was free from Hellenistic influence. The isolated Christianity which developed there retained more closely its original Semitic form. In many areas: linguistic, cultural, etc.

This would have been the case in Europe, as well, had paganism remained the official religion. The worst thing that could have happened for the preservation of Semitic Christianity in Europe, was for Constantine to have converted and established it as the official creed of Byzantium, by sword against pagans and by fist against Aramaic Christianity.

The eastern Aramaic manuscripts were in isolation. The western Aramaic manuscripts were not. That is the reality of history. And it has a lot to do with the answer to your inquiry regarding why the SOC are Greek primacists today.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)